Peabody Trust (202122409)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122409

Peabody Trust

29 September 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports about repairs and the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy;
2. Handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities;
3. Response to staff conduct concerns in relation to information given to the resident;
4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant. The tenancy started on 30 October 2020. It is not disputed the resident did not move in until December 2020. The property is a 1 bedroom, ground floor flat. The resident lives with his wife at the property. Both are disabled. The resident said he has the following disabilities, as supported by a letter from the NHS: arthritis; severe depression and anxiety; angioedema; poor mobility; carpal tunnel; and obesity.

Prior to October 2020 the resident and his wife lived in another property managed by the landlord. The resident made reports of anti social behaviour (ASB) and the landlord made an application for a priority move on the resident’s behalf. The landlord also advised the resident of other options including a mutual exchange.
The landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB, including the recommendation of a house move, were considered by this Service in February 2021. No maladministration was found.
It is not disputed the resident reported the condition of the property to the landlord between November 2020 and June 2021; specifically that there were holes and no coverings to the floors, and paint was dripping down the walls. It is not disputed the landlord offered a £200 decorating voucher to the resident.
It is not disputed the landlord’s voids team photographed the property prior to the start of the tenancy. The photographs show uncovered floors with paint and other marks to large areas of the floor. Marks also appeared to be present to some walls.
On 18 June 2021 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. He said:
1. The new property had holes in the floor and no floor coverings.
2. The new property had paint dripping down the walls.
3. £200 and a paint voucher from the landlord was not helpful as he was disabled and could not collect it.
4. The move cost nearly £4000 in painting, flooring and moving costs.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 June 2021. It said the resident had the property from October 2020 and so the six week defect period had passed.
On 22 June 2021 the resident chased up a response to his complaint. He said that he could not move into the property until 4 December 2020 due to the condition of the property. He said that rent had been paid out of his universal credit payment even though the property was unsuitable to live in.
On 9 July 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It said:
1. It offered him £200 towards the costs associated with moving and redecoration, which the resident accepted.
2. His complaint of 18 June 2021 was being considered separately by the voids team. If it agreed that the property was let in an uninhabitable condition, it would amend the tenancy start date.
3. The landlord offered £25 compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint.
The resident responded the same day and asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2. He reiterated the aspects of his complaint and added:
1. There were mice at the property.
2. The property had condensation.
3. He wanted the landlord to contribute towards the cost of redecoration of the property which he said cost him £4000.
4. He asked the landlord to change the tenancy agreement start date to 4 December 2020, when he was able to move into the property.
The landlord responded on 9 July 2021 and said:
1. As outlined in the tenancy agreement, residents were responsible for the internal decoration of the property.
2. It had offered him £200 towards the cost of removals, which he accepted. It did not have to pay towards his moving costs and so this had been offered on a discretionary basis.
3. The voids team would respond to his complaint regarding the repairs. If it concluded that the repairs meant the property was uninhabitable, then it would arrange for the start date of the tenancy to be amended, which would remove the rental charge for that period.
4. His complaint would be escalated to stage 2.
On 12 July 2021 the resident sent an invoice to the landlord for decorating, flooring and shelving costs. The landlord told him it was not responsible for such costs as part of its lettable standard. The resident responded and said he had not been told that he would be responsible for decorating costs and that it was “disgusting” that the landlord had left him and his wife, both being disabled, to “fend for themselves”.
On 13 July 2021 the resident chased up a response to his complaint about the condition of the property. The landlord said a stage 1 response would be provided by the end of the week.
On 16 July 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about the condition of the property. This aspect of complaint had been separated from the original complaint, submitted 18 June 2021, and was addressed separately by the voids team as follows:
1. The general lettable standard did not include decorations or flooring (outside of the kitchen and bathroom).
2. The landlord acknowledged moving was difficult and expensive. As a goodwill gesture it offered £750 towards decoration costs.
3. It acknowledged there had been a delay in responding to the complaint and offered £100 to acknowledge this.
The resident told the landlord on 16 July 2021 that if the landlord increased its offer of compensation and changed the tenancy start date to 4 December 2020 he would accept the offer.
On 19 July 2021 the landlord told the resident that it would not change the tenancy start date as there was nothing preventing him from living at the property.
The resident responded the same day and said that the property was a “pigsty” and that it was “grossly unfair” for him to spend £4000 on a property that belongs to the landlord. He said there was no way he could live in the property until it was decorated and that the landlord had “forced” him to move. He asked for his complaint about the condition of the property to be escalated to stage 2.
On 23 July 2021 the landlord stated that it had escalated the complaints about the condition of the property to stage 2. It said it would provide responses by 13 August 2021.
On 13 August 2021 the landlord provided a response at stage 2. It combined the resident’s complaints. The landlord said:
1. The resident would still be liable to pay rent for the property from the tenancy start date of 30 October 2020 even if he was not residing at the property due to redecoration he undertook.
2. The resident’s rent account had been credited with housing benefit payments which cleared the arrears that had accrued and there was no reason to change the tenancy start date.
3. It carried out work to bring the property to the lettable standard before it was handed over to the resident.
4. The landlord acknowledged the floor was not carpeted and there were paint stains on the floor boards. It said this was not unusual when moving into a property as it expected the new resident to lay floor covering.
5. It was not responsible for floor coverings anywhere in the property apart from the bathroom and kitchen areas. The onus to provide floorcoverings for other areas was on the resident.
6. It was not responsible for the shelf the resident’s contractor built.
7. It had contacted its tenant and family support team to see if it could offer support due to the resident’s vulnerability and that of his wife.
8. The goodwill gesture of £750 offered towards the decorating costs was reasonable and proportionate.
9. The offer of £100 for complaint handling was correct.
10. An additional £100 was offered to acknowledge the time and trouble the resident spent when seeking clarification of how the landlord could help him.
11. Its total revised offer of compensation of £950 was reasonable and proportionate, and in line with its compensation policy.
The landlord’s repair records show repairs reported on:
1. 22 November 2021 for ‘pest proofing’ the kitchen. There was no record of the work being completed. A works order was raised the same day.
2. 29 November 2021 for damaged bathroom flooring. The floor was recorded as sinking and work was identified to cover and support the floor below. The occupants were noted as vulnerable in view of a potential trip hazard. The works order was not raised for several months (March 2022).
In January 2022 the resident requested a copy of his tenancy agreement. The landlord told him on 7 January 2022 that it did not seem to have been uploaded onto its electronic system. It requested a copy from the lettings officer.
The resident responded the same day in an email to the landlord. He said:
1. He requested a letter confirming his tenancy.
2. The landlord gave him a paint voucher but he could not collect it as he was disabled.
3. Money was taken from his benefits because the landlord asked universal credit to deduct money to pay the rent and they were close to being evicted.
4. Universal credit stole £1012.
5. He had to pay £128.77 in council tax.
6. The resident said he “would not stop” until he got the money he was owed:
  1. £3230 painting and decorating.
  2. £1012 rent deducted from benefits.
  3. £128.77 he had paid in council tax.
7. He did not have a tenancy agreement and this was the fault of the landlord.
8. The flooring was starting to rise up in places.
9. The flooring was sinking in the bathroom.
On 10 January 2022 the resident told the landlord:
1. He would seek legal advice as to why he was not entitled to full housing benefit and council tax relief from 30 October 2020.
2. The rent of £1012 which had been deducted from his benefits should be repaid to him.
3. The £128.77 he paid in council tax should be repaid to him because “nobody would believe that we were entitled to full council tax from the 30th October 2020, when our tenancy started”.
4. The landlord should pay him £3230 for the cost of the contractor.
5. A contractor had told him that the flooring may have to be ripped out and replaced.
6. There were holes in the floor in the sitting room and hallway before the resident laid the flooring. The issue with the flooring rising up in the property and sinking in the bathroom was therefore the landlord’s responsibility. The issue with the flooring was concerning him as his wife was partially sighted.
7. He was waiting for a wet room but this was with social services.
On 11 January 2022 the landlord told the resident that the issues about rent, council tax and benefits would need to be addressed by the benefits team at the council. It said that it had no say in what benefits the resident was entitled to or the dates applicable.
On 12 January 2022 the landlord sent the resident a copy of his tenancy agreement. It said he would have originally been sent it via email and that it could have gone into his junk folder. The resident responded and said he had not received it and asked for evidence that the landlord had sent it to him. He asked what the landlord was doing about his complaints. The resident reiterated the flooring was a danger to his wife. He also reiterated his concerns about his decorating costs and his benefits being taken. He said the landlord had not helped him with “flooring, windows, mice” and asked it to deal with the matters as a stage one complaint.
On 14 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. He said:
1. He did not receive the tenancy agreement from a named staff member at any time.
2. The staff member was unprofessional and difficult to get hold of.
3. The paint voucher he was offered ran out.
4. He had to get a contractor to repair the holes in the floor before laying down flooring.
5. The flooring was rising up in places and sinking in the bathroom. The resident said this was down to the staff member’s unprofessionalism.
6. The landlord did not support him with his benefits and by the time his benefits were sorted he was £2500 behind with the rent. He was “forced” onto universal credit who deducted money for rent from his benefits.
7. It was only with the help of his MP that he got back onto ESA and could claim housing benefit. However housing benefit was only paid from 14 December when the tenancy agreement was from 30 October 2020.
The landlord responded the same day and said:
1. It expected residents to pay for their own decorating costs.
2. It had given him £900 when it does not usually offer anything so no additional money would be given for decorating costs.
3. It would open a stage one complaint about the staff member and the condition of the property.
On 14 January 2022 the resident said he had complained about the condition of the property before so asked what would happen.
On 17 January 2022 the landlord told the resident that, following his escalation request, it would be considering the following complaints at stage 2:
1. Staff conduct.
2. Holes in the floor causing the flooring to rise up in the sitting room, hallway and bedroom, and sink in the bathroom.
3. Flooring.
4. Windows.
5. Mice.
The same day, the resident told the landlord that there were other aspects of complaint outstanding in addition to those it outlined, namely:
1. The staff member not issuing a tenancy agreement.
2. Receiving calls about the previous property.
3. Money stolen from universal credit. This was his because universal credit benefit was automatically paid to the landlord for rent.
4. Payment of council tax as a result of not having a tenancy agreement.
5. He spent £3230 making this property liveable as there were holes in the floor and paint dripping off the walls.
On 28 January 2022 the landlord apologised for the incorrect categorisation of his complaint as stage two. It said it had been changed to a stage one complaint and that it would respond by 11 February 2022.
On 1 February 2022 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1. It said:
1. The condition of the property had previously been addressed at stage 2 and it had offered the resident a total of £950 compensation.
2. In relation to the alleged conduct of the staff member, the landlord had spoken to the line manager. As the staff member was no longer employed by the landlord this could not be investigated further. It apologised if his attitude did not meet the expected levels of service.
3. There was an administrative error which meant the complaint had been incorrectly categorised. It offered £25 compensation for the delay this caused.
The resident responded the same day. He said he would not accept the £25 offered. He said that his previous complaint submitted in June 2021 had been about the cost of decorating and moving. His complaint was now about the condition of the property when he was given it, including it having holes in the floor and the floor now lifting and sinking. He also reiterated the complaint about universal credit and housing benefit.
On 2 February 2022 the landlord confirmed that it would consider the complaint at stage 2.
On 11 February 2022 the resident told the landlord it had been calling him about the flooring in the bathroom, but the problem was throughout the whole property.
On 11 February 2022 the landlord said the complaint had been escalated to stage 2 and a response would be provided by 8 March 2022.
The same day the landlord said that it was looking into the tenancy agreement and that it should be able to respond by 22 February 2022.
On 3 March 2022 the landlord responded to the resident about the tenancy agreement and said as follows:
1. The tenancy was sent to the resident by email on 29 October 2020 for him to sign.
2. The resident signed the tenancy via “docusign” on 30 October 2020.
3. The landlord sent a signed copy of the tenancy agreement to the resident by email on 30 October 2020.
4. As the resident had received the initial email and signed the agreement, there was nothing to suggest the resident’s copy of the signed document was not received as it had been sent the same way.
5. There were no other reports of the resident not having received emails from the landlord.
The resident responded the same day and said that he had not received the tenancy agreement until it was sent to him on 16 January 2022.
Also on 3 March 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 2. It said:
1. It previously addressed his complaint about the condition of the property and had offered £950 which included a contribution to the decoration costs. This aspect had exhausted the internal complaints procedure and could not be further investigated.
2. In regard to the reports of the bathroom flooring sinking and the other floor coverings lifting away, a works order was raised and a contractor was booked to attend that day, on 3 March 2022. The contractor would report their findings to the landlord to confirm either the completion of the job or if additional repairs were required.
3. In response to the reports of the flooring having holes when the resident moved in, the landlord viewed pictures taken by the voids team and holes were not shown. It asked the resident to send pictures of the holes if he had any and then the matter could be looked at.
4. The lettings office was no longer employed by the landlord and offered apologies that he did not receive the level of service expected. It said that as a learning point it would feed this back to the lettings team to enable them to review their process about how staff should engage with residents.
5. An administrative error meant there was a delay in logging the complaint and a response was not provided until 1 February 2022. The landlord made a revised offer of compensation as follows:
  1. £50 for the delay in raising the stage one complaint.
  2. £25 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
On 4 March 2022 the resident told the landlord that he did not accept the compensation. He said:
1. He received a welcome pack, not a tenancy agreement.
2. As he did not have a tenancy agreement he could not claim housing benefit and council tax.
3. He reiterated his representations in relation to the condition of the property and the cost of the contractor.
4. The shortfall in rent was taken from universal credit in March and April 2021. The landlord was paid rent twice for these months as the council paid rent too. The period from 30 October 2020 to 7 December 2020 remained unpaid.
On 9 March 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint. He said:
1. The flooring in the bathroom had been taken up and was not finished three weeks later.
2. The resident and his wife are both disabled and vulnerable. The landlord left them without a bathroom for three weeks. His wife “had to beg the neighbour to use her toilet”.
3. He reiterated that the move to the property had cost him:
  1. £3330 on painting and flooring.
  2. £500 on moving.
  3. £500 to put a TV on the wall.
4. He requested:
  1. The landlord admit their mistakes.
  1. The bathroom works be completed.
  2. The landlord to “pay the monies for the rent they received twice £900”.
  3. The landlord to pay a further £1000 towards the flooring and painting.
On 10 March 2022 the resident referred his case to this Service. He said:
1. He applied for dual housing benefit for their old and new property. The council would not pay dual housing benefit and the resident could not move into the new property straight away.
2. He did not move into the new property straight away because the lettings officer had told them they could remain in the old property for four weeks.
3. The lettings officer did not advise them that housing benefit rules meant that the resident had to move into the new property as soon as possible. This led to them being in rent arrears and having deductions made from their universal credit.
4. When they moved, the landlord said they had to apply for universal credit as it was a ‘universal credit area’. The resident said that they were entitled to stay on housing benefit as they were on severe disability premium of employment and support allowance (ESA). He said he had been given “bad advice” from the landlord.
5. The resident requested the landlord reimburse him as follows:
  1. £674 to cover the rent for March and April 2021 which the landlord received twice, once from housing benefit and once from universal credit.
  2. £89 to cover the amount directly deducted from his universal credit in March 2021.
  3. £59 to cover the amount directly deducted from his universal credit in April 2021.
6. The landlord said it would help with moving and decorating costs but other than providing decorating vouchers, it did not do so.
7. The landlord had offered £750 towards the flooring and decorating costs within its stage one complaint response. Although the resident accepted this he was unhappy with it and wanted a further £750 in compensation.
8. He wanted the works to the bathroom flooring due to be completed that afternoon to be done.
On 11 March 2022 this Service summarised the resident’s complaint to the landlord and asked it to respond at stage 2 by 8 April 2022, under a ‘first request for action’. It said that if it had already provided the final response the landlord should forward a copy to the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 March 2022 and reiterated his dissatisfaction with his issues of complaint. He added:
1. The sub flooring in the bathroom had been damaged which led to water damage and the whole flooring may need to be replaced.
2. Although the flooring in the bathroom was progressing, the flooring in other parts of the property was still a trip hazard.
3. Lino was due to be fitted in the bathroom but he did not know when. This would be removed when he had a wet room installed and was a waste of resource.
On 14 March 2022 the landlord apologised that the issue with the bathroom floor had not been resolved. It advised him to contact the contractor for an update. It said that one complaint was outstanding and that all other complaints had been responded to.
On 21 March 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint. He said:
1. The contractor had been working on the bathroom for four weeks but it remained unfinished.
2. A supervisor attended on 24 February 2022 and said he would return the following day but he did not attend for a week.
3. The lino was laid but the contractors left rubbish in the flat and garden.
On 24 March 2022 the landlord acknowledged the complaint.
On 7 April 2022 the work to the resident’s bathroom floor was completed.
On 8 April 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 as follows:
1. The works started in February 2022 and took approximately six weeks to complete.
2. The resident confirmed that he and his wife were able to use the bathroom during the time but the space had been left untidy which meant that he and his wife had to use extra caution to avoid any materials left behind.
3. The service level agreement for a general needs repair was 35 days. The bathroom repair was therefore approximately two weeks overdue. The landlord apologised for the length of time taken to repair to the bathroom floor.
4. The resident requested £100 compensation. The landlord agreed that this was a fair and reasonable compensation award based on the challenges the resident and his wife encountered during the repair. It offered him £100 compensation.
5. The landlord spoke to the resident on 20 April 2022. It said there were no other outstanding complaints. It asked if he was happy for it to issue the £100 compensation and mark the complaint as closed.
On 8 April 2022, this Service sent the landlord a ‘second request for action’ and summarised the aspects of the resident’s complaints. It asked the landlord to provide a full and final response to all of the resident’s complaint issues by 28 April 2022.
On 21 April 2022 the resident told the landlord that he no longer wished to accept the £100 compensation offered and that he would refer his complaint to this Service.
On 26 May 2022 this Service wrote to the landlord and issued it with a Complaint Handling Failure Order under paragraph 13 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). This was because it had not responded to all aspects of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord responded the same day. It told this Service that it responded to all of the resident’s complaints. It asked for a review of the Complaint Handling Failure Order.
The resident emailed this Service on 10 June 2022. He said:
1. The lettings officer “lied” when he started the tenancy agreement as they said housing benefit would cover both properties. As he was unable to move into the property due to its condition, the rent was overdue. The landlord asked for the money to be deducted from universal credit in March and April 2021; however, this was a mistake as his wife has a “severe disability premium” which entitles him to housing benefit and employment support allowance.
2. He did not receive the tenancy agreement until 16 January 2022.
3. It cost £5000 to fix the property and to make it liveable.
On 13 June 2022 this Service responded to the landlord and said:
1. The resident raised complaints about mice, the windows and the wet room on 10 January 2022.
2. On 17 January 2022 the landlord acknowledged it would provide a complaint response at stage 2. Therefore the landlord should have responded by 14 February 2022.
3. Despite requests from this Service on 11 March 2022, 20 May 2022 and in the Complaint Handling Failure Order the landlord failed to respond in line with the timescale.
4. It was appropriate to maintain the Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) and mark it as non-compliant.
On 24 June 2022, the landlord issued a “follow on” to the stage 2 response in response to the CHFO issued by this Service. It said:
1. The issues raised by the resident on 29 November 2021 were recorded as an “expression of dissatisfaction” instead of a complaint. It apologised for not making this clear at the time.
2. The lettings team confirmed the tenancy start date of 30 October 2020. A copy of the agreement was sent to the resident on 12 January 2022, further to his request. The neighbourhoods team confirmed the agreement was first sent to the resident by ‘docusign’ on 29 October 2022. The resident acknowledged it was received but he could not find it in his emails.
3. The stage 2 response on 3 March 2022 explained pictures received from the voids team did not show holes in the floor. The landlord explained it was not responsible for floor coverings, expect in the kitchen and bathroom. Repairs to the bathroom floor were ongoing at that time.
4. A universal credit payment of £889.96 was received for rent for March and April 2021.
5. A goodwill contribution of £950 was offered towards redecoration costs.
6. It was sorry the resident was “misinformed about…entitlement to benefit on two homes”. It offered a goodwill payment of £889.96 in reimbursement of the universal credit amount debited; £150 for complaint handling and £150 for time and trouble in pursuing these matters.
The resident contacted this Service on 9 August 2022. He acknowledged the offer of compensation and added the issue was the landlord had not addressed the “unprofessional attitude” of a staff member who did not resolve the holes in the floor. Further, he could not move into the property until 3 December 2020 and the local authority did not pay for empty properties. Therefore, he would still be behind in rent by 5 weeks 3 days.
The resident emailed the landlord and this Service on 22 September 2022. He said he did not accept the landlord’s offer.
This Service contacted the resident on 9 August 2023. The resident said his former neighbour, who was the subject of an ASB complaint and previous investigation, was perpetrating ABS against the new occupant of his old property. He added the neighbour had been arrested. The resident was reminded the ASB matters already decided upon would not be considered as part of this investigation. The resident said he would accept the compensation offered by the landlord if it was paid direct and not offset against his rental arrears.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy

It is not disputed the tenancy started on 30 October 2020. Nor is it disputed the resident undertook works at the property and so did not live there until 4 December 2020. While there was no evidence seen to show when the resident reported the condition of the property to the landlord, it was not disputed this was at some point after the start of the tenancy and before the first stage 1 complaint in June 2021. The resident said a member of the landlord’s staff misinformed him he could claim housing benefit for both properties. This meant the resident did not try to move out quickly.
The landlord did not agree to carry out works to the floors or to decorate the walls of the property. It said these works fell under the resident’s obligations from the tenancy agreement. The timeline shows the landlord offered the resident a £200 and then £750 redecoration voucher.
Both the landlord’s voids team and the resident provided photographs which appear to show the condition of the empty property before and just after the resident moved in. The landlord acknowledged paint stains to the uncovered floors. It said it was not responsible for decorating or providing floor coverings.
The tenancy agreement states the landlord is obliged to ‘keep the structure and exterior of your home in repair including…internal walls, floors and ceilings, doors and door frames, door hinges and skirting boards but not including internal painting and decoration’. The agreement lists the resident’s obligation to ‘keep the interior of your home in good, clean condition and to decorate it as often as is necessary to keep it in good decorative order’.
The landlord’s lettable standard sets out the minimum standards for making an empty home ready for letting. In relation to this case, it says:
1. ‘Timber floors will be in a condition to receive carpets, with loose boards secured and damaged boards replaced.
2. The floor finishes in the kitchen and bathroom will be in a reasonable and hygienic condition.
3. Walls will be brought up to a condition suitable for painting.
4. Decorations will be in exceptional circumstances.
5. Walls will be substantially clean and free from scuffs and stains in a condition suitable for painting. For walls with wallpaper, any loose paper will be stuck back.
6. Vouchers or a paint pack will be provided for rooms that require decorating.’
The landlord’s obligations under the tenancy agreement, were to keep the structure of internal floors and walls in a good condition, but not their decorative condition. The lettable standard also said the landlord would only decorate in exceptional circumstances but walls and floors would be ready to receive paint and coverings respectively. Therefore, its initial decision not to redecorate or lay floor coverings was in accordance with its specific obligations; however, this approach was unsympathetic, given the resident’s circumstances and vulnerabilities. This will be assessed in the following section below.
The landlord said it was responsible for the floor coverings in the kitchen and bathroom, as per its obligations under the tenancy agreement. The resident reported the bathroom floor as “sinking” on 29 November 2021, as shown in the landlord’s repair records. The note to the repair records said this presented a trip hazard in view of the occupants’ vulnerabilities. The landlord’s stage 2 response to the second complaint, on 3 March 2022, said its contractor was attending the property the same day to investigate. This was approximately 3 months after the repair was recorded. This delay was not appropriate, particularly as the landlord had identified a possible trip hazard for a vulnerable occupant. The timeline shows the work was completed on 7 April 2022. This was over 1 month after the landlord’s contractor attended the property to inspect the floor and over 4 months after the need for the repair was recorded.
As the work was carried out to the sole bathroom, there would have been significant disruption to the resident; particularly over the period the works were being carried out. This was because the use of the bathroom would have been restricted. It is not clear, from the evidence seen, why the work could not be completed earlier; particularly in consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities. This resulted in distress and inconvenience for the resident.
The timeline shows the resident reported a mice problem on 9 July 2021. The landlord carried out pest proofing in the kitchen in November 2021. The resident continued to complain about mice from 10 January 2022. The landlord notified the resident it was considering his complaint on 17 January 2022, when it acknowledged the complaint escalation. The timeline does not show any further action by the landlord.
The tenancy agreement is silent on responsibilities around pest control. However, the landlord undertook related works previously. Therefore, not taking any action subsequently was not reasonable. The continuation of the issue and lack of a substantive response from the landlord was distressing for the resident.
The timeline shows the resident complained about the windows. There was no evidence seen to show the landlord followed up on this report. While the complaint did not specify the issues experienced by the resident, the landlord did not investigate, or seek clarification from the resident. The timeline shows the resident did not feel listened to when complaining. This was both distressing and inconvenient for the resident.
While the landlord was contractually entitled, under the tenancy agreement, to refuse decorative works at the start of the term, it did not act in accordance with its repairing obligations in relation to reports of repairs to the bathroom floor, the pest problem and reports of issues with the windows. This was distressing to the resident and constituted maladministration in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities

The landlord’s voids policy says it will ‘offer support where possible to vulnerable residents’. The landlord moved the resident from a previous property following ASB which was the subject of a previous investigation by this Service. The process was distressing for the resident and it was reasonable to conclude he would have preferred to stay in his original home and felt he was moving through no fault of his own.
The landlord recognised its initial stance on decorative works, was not fair in consideration of the resident’s circumstances and vulnerabilities. By increasing the amount to £750 towards the redecoration costs incurred by the resident, was more reasonable.
The timeline shows the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. It moved the resident from his home to an undecorated property without floor coverings. While it offered the resident decoration vouchers, it did not demonstrate any empathy for the resident’s situation. It expected the resident to decorate the property which, while in strict accordance with its obligations, was heavy handed in consideration of the resident’s circumstances, following a distressing move and his vulnerabilities. This compounded the resident’s distress and inconvenience and was avoidable. This constituted maladministration.

The landlord’s response to staff conduct concerns in relation to information given to the resident

The landlord said it was sorry the resident was “misinformed about…entitlement to benefit on two homes”. It offered a goodwill payment of £889.96 in reimbursement of the universal credit amount debited. While there was no evidence seen to show the precise information provided to the resident, it was not disputed the resident was “misinformed” by the landlord. This resulted in rent being deducted directly from universal credit by the landlord.
The landlord did not act reasonably in providing incorrect and misleading information to the resident. This was distressing to the resident. It was also distressing because of the financial implication of having the restricted access to his benefit entitlement.
Following a CHFO, issued by this Service, the landlord apologised to the resident, it accepted misleading information was provided and it offered to reimburse the £889.96 deducted, as a goodwill gesture. While the resident did not accept the offer, it was reasonable in the circumstances as it sought to compensate the resident in the amount deducted from his benefits.
While it was reasonable for the landlord to offer reimbursement, this was done after the complaints process was complete and after the CHFO was issued by this Service. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to also have offered additional compensation for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by having to raise the issue multiple times. Consequently, there was maladministration in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says new complaints will be logged within 5 working days and responses provided within 10 working days. A stage 2 complaint will be responded to within 20 working days of the escalation request. It adds an escalation must be made within 10 working days of the stage 1 response.
This Service issued a CHFO on 26 May 2022. This was because the landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaints of 10 January 2022. This Service wrote to the landlord in March and April 2022, and requested that it provide complete responses to the resident’s complaints. The landlord did not take the opportunity to provide complete responses in line with the timescales set out in the Code.
The landlord provided a “follow on” response to the various complaints on 24 June 2022. This was 6 months after the resident complained in January 2022 after various contact from this Service. It should not have taken the time, or the intervention of this Service, to provide complete responses to the resident’s complaints. In the follow on response, it said it found the resident was due £150 compensation for the time and trouble in pursuing the complaints; and £150 compensation for complaint handling. While this offer recognised the failings in complaint handling, a higher award would have been more appropriate.
The CHFO said the landlord did not respond to particular parts of the resident’s complaint. This was in relation to a request for a wet room and repairs to windows. While the resident referred to it in correspondence, he did not expand on the specific issue with the windows. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have questioned this to establish the reason for the complaint so that it could provide an appropriate response. Further, while the resident only mentioned condensation at the property on one occasion, the landlord did not include a response to this point in its complaint responses, nor did it investigate the issue.
While the timeline became more complex due to the number of complaints the resident raised, the timeline shows the landlord did try to respond to the complaints as they were raised. Ultimately the timeline shows the landlord struggled to maintain an appropriate oversight over the process and this led to the issuing of a CHFO. Its overall failures in handling the complaints constitutes maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to repairs and condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of staff conduct concerns as a result of information given to the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in relation the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

While the landlord’s initial decision not to support the resident with redecoration was in accordance with a narrow interpretation of its obligations, given the residents circumstances and vulnerabilities, its approach was unsympathetic and heavy handed. Further, the landlord did not act in accordance with its repairing obligations in relation to reports of repairs to the bathroom floor, the pest problem and reports of issues with the windows.
While the landlord offered redecoration vouchers to the resident, it did not demonstrate any empathy for the resident’s situation, due to his personal circumstances and known vulnerabilities. While the redecoration and floor coverings fell under the resident’s obligations, the landlord could have done more to support a vulnerable resident at a time where his vulnerabilities were compounded by his personal circumstances.
The landlord acknowledged the resident may have been provided with incorrect information by a member of its staff, in relation to the application of his benefits to the property move. The landlord offered to reimburse the resident in the amount deducted from his universal credit account, which was used to settle the rent. This was reasonable but it came after the intervention of this Service.
This Service issued a CHFO on 26 May 2022. This was because the landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaints of 10 January 2022. This Service requested that it provide complete responses to the resident’s complaints. The landlord did not take the opportunity to provide complete responses in line with the timescales set out in the order.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Pay £3289.96 compensation; comprising:
  1. £1250 for distress and inconvenience to the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
  2. £400 for distress and inconvenience to the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. £889.96 as reimbursement of universal credit payment taken to pay rent.
  4. £750 towards redecoration costs
2. All compensation must be paid to the resident directly and not offset against rent or any arrears. The total may be reduced by any compensation already paid to the resident.
3. Formally apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to review the circumstances of this case, in particular its handling of the resident’s move in view of his personal circumstances and known vulnerabilities. It should report its findings to this service together with any lessons learned and changes it has made to its processes.