North Kesteven District Council (202225117)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225117

North Kesteven District Council

19 January 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The property’s condition on letting and the time taken for the landlord to complete the subsequent repairs.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She signed a tenancy agreement on 4 July 2022 and moved into the property on 7 November 2022 after a protracted dispute about repairs. The property is a 2 bedroom bungalow. The resident was offered the property following a medical assessment. She has several disabilities that relate to her physical and mental health. The landlord is aware of these vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s report shows several repairs that were done while the property was empty. The repairs included the removal of loose and broken floor tiles to the lounge, hall, and both bedrooms. They also included works to remove old appliances and make good parts of the kitchen. Prior to letting the property, the landlord completed a void inspection report signing off the property as ready to let on 1 July 2022.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 July 2022 to report some issues with the property. She asked the landlord to speak to her representatives on her behalf because she had heightened anxiety. She sent a list of repairs that included:
1. Damage to sealed surfaces on the counters, drawers, kickboards and cupboard linings in the kitchen.
2. Damp and mould throughout the kitchen.
3. The non-standard kitchen units that were unable to accommodate her fridge or cooker. An inaccessible stop cock (that was located behind the space for a fridge/freezer).
4. An asbestos survey referred to areas in the kitchen as presumed to contain asbestos and this impacted her ability to tackle the damp and mould on her own. It also recorded asbestos in the floor tiles and adhesive.
5. The flooring was not sealed around the toilet and was broken and bulging in places.
6. Unsafe flooring throughout the property. The resident reported she had fallen in the hallway and hurt her arm. She felt the landlord should make it level. She said her carpet fitter told her the floor needed to be made good before he could lay her carpet.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s list the following day and began internal enquiries regarding the repairs. The resident emailed again on 29 July 2022 asking for an update. She said she could not afford to pay rent on two properties and she had not moved into the property because of the repairs. The landlord responded to the resident’s representative on 4 August 2022. It said:
1. The resident had viewed the property and accepted the tenancy. The purpose of the viewing was to ensure the property met her needs and preferences.
2. The property met its letting standard in terms of cleanliness, repairs, and decoration. There was nothing that would prevent the resident from being able to move into the property.
3. There were some items of work that would be done around the tenant after she moved in. These were discussed with her at the viewing.
4. Having signed the tenancy, the resident was liable for the rent. The landlord would accept a repayment agreement, so those arrears were manageable. It suggested that she seek some assistance for a discretionary housing payment to cover some of the liability of rent at two properties.
5. There were some items at the property that were non-standard. This included the flooring in the kitchen. They were explained to the resident and set out in writing to her.
6. It disputed the floor was uneven.
7. It had arranged to meet the resident on site.
8. It did not place any undue pressure on the resident to take the tenancy. It did not knowingly let a property that was unsuitable to her needs. It had been responsive and was looking to work with the resident so that she could move in as soon as possible.
The landlord met with the resident at the property on 9 August 2022 and agreed for latex to be laid around the tiles. This was booked by the landlord on 10 August 2022. It met with the resident again on 19 August 2022 and decided to replace the kitchen entirely. The landlord’s records provide no information regarding its rationale for this decision.
Representatives of the resident contacted the landlord on 31 August 2022 and 6 September 2022 asking for updates. The landlord replied on 9 September 2022 and reiterated that it believed the property was in an acceptable condition. It said the property was accessible, safe, and met the letting standard and had done so since the viewing. It said the kitchen layout could be better and agreed to improve it. It believed the work could be done around the resident while she was living at the property. It offered to refer the resident to its support services.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 September 2022. She said, during the meeting on 19 August 2022 the landlord agreed to install a new kitchen, install new extractor systems in the kitchen and bathroom, as well as a new heater in the kitchen. She said that the landlord’s contractor had visited her on 30 August 2022 to discuss the work. The contractor told her that it would need to hack off and re-plaster the kitchen wall. The work had not begun as the contractor was waiting for a purchase order from the landlord. She highlighted her vulnerabilities and said living in “a building project” would make them worse. She said it was “absurd” to move in when extensive works to the kitchen were imminent/necessary.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 September 2022 saying she had received no response to her previous email or phone calls. She told the landlord the situation was making her feel “extremely unwell”. She said that it would be better to move in after the work was complete as there would be no cooking, cleaning, or washing facilities during the work. She was also reluctant to fit carpets when there were plans to plaster the kitchen. She had received letters saying she was in £523.14 arrears. In addition, she had removals organised, carpets ready to be laid and was ready to move. However, she wanted the repairs to be resolved beforehand.
The landlord replied on 26 September 2022 and apologised for not keeping the resident informed. It said the works could be done around the resident. It recognised that there would be disruption but its contractor was experienced in completing this type of work around residents. It said that it would not adjust the rent as it believed the property was habitable and the work was based on her preference. It directed the resident to its complaint process if she disagreed with its decision.
Another representative of the resident wrote to the landlord on 27 September 2022. They highlighted the resident’s vulnerabilities and emphasised how the condition of the property would make it difficult for her to cope. They referred to the loud noises and stress caused in the repair work. They asked for updates following the visits by contractors in August 2022. They wanted to know if it was the landlord’s intention to replace the kitchen or to undertake the repair work. They asked for assistance to resolve the outstanding rent arrears.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 September 2022 and asked if her email from 25 September 2022 was a formal complaint. She replied and said it was. She said the timeframe for dealing with this matter had been unacceptable and caused an “enormous amount of stress and anxiety”.
On 5 October 2022 the resident wrote a timeline of events to substantiate her complaint. She went on to say:
1. She found that emails from the landlord were insulting, lacked empathy and were almost adversarial.
2. She told the landlord that she suﬀered from complex PTSD and loud noises were triggering for her. This had been explained by her Community Psychiatric Nurse.
3. The landlord had neglected to respond or oﬀer any resolution to the concerns outlined in her emails. It had “simply threatened escalation measures”.
4. She had repeatedly said she was unable to move in as there was nowhere for her appliances to be situated in the kitchen. The situation had not changed despite the landlord agreed to install a new kitchen. If there was a delay in carrying out the works, then the landlord should provide temporary solutions to allow her to move into the property. No solutions had been oﬀered.
5. She felt the landlord had been purposely misleading in its responses to her representatives.
6. The landlord could choose to quickly resolve the situation by making a reasonable decision. It should put on hold on her liability for the rent and restart the tenancy the date that work had been completed.
7. She felt that she had been trying hard to resolve this at great cost to her mental and physical health.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 11 October 2022. It considered the complaint to be about the property condition, rent arrears, issues with utility bills and lack of communication. It broke down its response into these sections and said:
1. The property met the letting standard at the time of viewing on 4 July 2022.
2. It had carried out remedial work since letting the property.
3. The resident raised concerns about the kitchen standard and functionality. It acknowledged the units’ layout may have restricted the position of some white goods, but it did meet the landlord’s letting standard. Its repairs team listened to the request and agreed to some adjustments to make facilities more useable.
4. It agreed to replace the kitchen. An order had been placed and work was due to start on 19 October 2022. The contractor would contact the resident separately to discuss the work. It made the decision to replace the kitchen “not because of the poor condition, but because it was in response to [the resident’s] appliances not fitting the existing spaces.”
5. The resident had concerns that the potential disturbance and noise involved with the work may affect her health and wellbeing. The landlord said it understood the work came with noise and disturbance, but its contractors were experienced in undertaking the work and would ensure minimal disruption. To reduce risk of a seizure its contractor could tell the resident so she could leave the property for a short while.
6. It offered to refer the resident to support from its liaison officers who help residents during improvement works.
7. It acknowledged that it would have been ideal for the work to be complete before the resident moved into the property. It did not believe the work meant the property was uninhabitable, nor prevented her from moving in.
8. It would not change the tenancy start date. It determined the property was habitable, subject to some work and had been since the start of the tenancy. It encouraged the resident to terminate her other tenancy and move into the property. It suggested that she set up a payment plan to reduce the outstanding balance over a reasonable period. It said the resident should start making payments “to avoid formal recovery action”.
9. It apologised that the resident felt the landlord had not sufficiently communicated with her on these matters. Its records indicated that there had been communication in response to the resident’s contact. It acknowledged that it could have been better and key decisions should have been confirmed in writing. It said it would learn from the resident’s experience.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 October 2022. She said that she wanted to escalate her complaint. She wrote a further email on 24 October 2022 setting out her specific points in appeal of the landlord’s decision. She said:
1. She had emailed her timeline for the property and felt the dates had been dictated by the landlord. She felt it had oﬀered no explanation or justification for the delays in resolving the issues.
2. The content of emails from the landlord had been contradictory. It had not responded to many calls and emails.
3. The landlord did not address the damage to the asbestos containing ﬂoor tiles. It made no reference to asbestos or the delays that prevented her from being able to move into the property.
4. The landlord made no reference to the damp issue in the kitchen.
5. While the work was ongoing the property was uninhabitable. She visited and found the property was covered in a thick red dust. Her bathroom was being used for mixing plaster and the living room was “in chaos”. Due to mould, the render had to be removed from the walls, treated and then re-rendered.
6. She disputed the landlord’s assertion that the kitchen was replaced because her appliances did not fit. The landlord had not acknowledged the size of the kitchen and the lack of alternative spaces for her kitchen appliances.
7. She referred to a statement by the landlord about the letting standard falling short of some resident’s personal standards. She did not consider damaged asbestos containing tiles to be a personal standard issue. She also did not feel that the inability to ﬁt standard size kitchen appliances or damp and mould were personal standards. She said that it could have all been avoided if anyone looked behind a water damaged panel to the cupboard prior to letting the property.
8. The landlord had not sought to understand her medical circumstances or seek conﬁrmation from medical professionals. There were suggestions about noise triggering seizures which she said were “insulting”. Her circumstances meant it was inappropriate for her to stay in a building site or leave the property when her health was very poor.
9. She wanted the tenancy to be restarted from when the property became habitable and a refund of the rent that had been paid to that point. She also sought compensation for the stress and anxiety this caused.
The landlord issued a stage 2 acknowledgement on 19 October 2022. It sent a separate holding email on 10 November 2022 saying it would need an additional 5 working days to provide its response. It estimated the response would be available by 22 November 2022.
The landlord’s records show that its contractor started the kitchen work 19 October 2022. It completed the installation of a new kitchen on 31 October 2022. It finished painting on 1 November 2022 and the resident moved into the property on 3 November 2022.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 25 November 2022. It apologised for the delay and said it was due to the “considerable amount of correspondence”. It set out each part of the complaint separately and said:
1. The property met its letting standard when it was offered and the resident should have moved into the property.
2. It considered the actions taken since the tenancy start date to address the concerns raised by the resident.
3. The agreement to install a kitchen was not due to the poor condition of the existing kitchen but was its response to the appliances not fitting the existing spaces. The offer to replace the kitchen was above and beyond what was required by the landlord. Amending the space to make room for a cooker and fridge would have been acceptable. Space for a dishwasher was not standard kitchen layout.
4. The decision to replace the whole kitchen did not mean that the resident could not move into the property. The landlord often completed full kitchen refurbishments whilst tenants remained in the property.
5. There was no evidence to show that the resident could not remain in the property whilst work was done from any medical professional. It recognised that the resident had “several complex medical conditions” but nothing suggested she could not reside at property.
6. The evidence the resident provided showed the landlord’s contractors undertook the kitchen work “as if there was no current tenancy”. It accepted that the action of the landlord and its contractors made the property uninhabitable. It agreed to pay £256.77 in recognition that the property could not have been inhabited between 19 October 2022 and 1 November 2022. This was based on weekly rent of £85.59 for 3 weeks.
7. It was not its intent to incorrectly characterise the nature of the resident’s medical condition. It apologised to her if it had caused distress.
8. There was no prior suggestion that the work on the kitchen was done to meet the resident’s personal preferences. It apologised if she felt this was the case.
9. The asbestos report said there was evidence of asbestos but it did not put the resident in any direct risk of harm. Providing it was left undisturbed. The damaged floor tiles were removed while the property was void and there were no issues that would prevent her from moving into the property.
10. It was satisfied that where reports of mould were made it addressed them as required. The mould would not have prevented the resident from moving into the property.
11. It did not uphold allegation that the resident could not move into property on 4 July 2022. It did not create delays that prevented her from moving into the property.
12. Its communication was not clear or timely. It noted the first concerns being raised on 10 July 2022, which were acknowledged on 11 July 2022 but not responded to.
13. It escalated the resident’s enquiry on 9 August 2022. It said it should have done this sooner but did not and this caused delays. On 19 August 2022 it met with the resident again and offered to fully replace the kitchen.
14. There were further delays in communication which meant that the work to replace the kitchen did not start until 19 October 2022. It agreed to offer a discretionary payment of £150 for the period 4 July 2022 and 19 October 2022. This was despite there being no evidence to show that she could not live at the property. The “gesture of goodwill” was to acknowledge its poor communication.
15. It made an additional offer of £150 for distress and inconvenience from its communication and record keeping. This brought the landlord’s total compensation to £556.77.
The resident did not agree with the landlord’s final response. She broadly reiterated her previous concerns. The case was brought to the Ombudsman on 24 February 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. As a result, the Ombudsman is unable to make a determination about the causal link between the delays and the resident’s physical or mental health. However, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s health is more appropriate for the courts and the resident may wish to pursue this in a legal setting.

Policies and procedures

The landlord has published its property standard on its website. The standard sets out the work it does whilst properties are vacant before new tenants move in. This includes:
1. cleaning the property;
2. re-decorate parts or all the property if required, and;
3. carrying out all the urgent repairs and trying to complete all other repairs whilst the property is empty.
The property standard says that sometimes it may leave minor repairs to be completed once a new tenant moves in.
The landlord’s repairs and improvements policy says it will prioritise repairs differently. It will complete all urgent repairs in 5 working days and routine repairs within 20 working days. It says that it will ensure properties are safe and clean, ready for new tenants to move in.
The landlord’s customer feedback policy says that it will acknowledge complaints within 4 working days. It will provide a response within 15 days at both stage 1 and stage 2.

The property’s condition on letting and the time taken for the landlord to complete the subsequent repairs

The landlord made its position clear regarding the condition of the property and the repairs. Although the resident disputed these.
The landlord’s records show that it inspected the kitchen prior to the resident moving in. It did not identify any major work at the time and signed the property off as ready to let in line with its procedures. However, the resident reported problems with the flooring throughout the property and issues with the kitchen within a week of signing for the tenancy. The landlord then took around a month before visiting the property and inspecting the repairs. It knew the resident was vulnerable, had fallen over in the property, and had said she could not move into the property as a result. There was an unreasonable delay to visit the property. It should have used its discretion to prioritise these repairs given the resident’s circumstances. When it did visit, it found that repairs were required to level out the floor and it decided to replace the whole kitchen.
The landlord said that it could have made alterations to the kitchen, rather than replace the whole thing. Instead, it decided to replace the kitchen on 19 August 2022. This decision meant that a considerable amount of work had to be done. The resident told the landlord she was reluctant to move into the property knowing that it would cause significant disruption. The landlord treated the resident unfairly by dismissing these concerns throughout its communication with the resident.
After approving the works, it took the landlord around 2 months before they started. It then took around 2 weeks to complete. Between signing for the tenancy and the completion of works no interim solutions or reasonable adjustments were provided by the landlord to accommodate the resident. As it believed the resident could move into the property, it should have considered minor alterations to the kitchen to allow her to install her appliances. Alternatively, it could have offered assistance or support for the resident to have appliances that would fit into the existing kitchen.
The landlord’s response to the residents reports of damp and mould are not clear. It said it addressed reports where required but does not set out how it did so. The resident provided records that show the landlord plastered some part of her home. She said that it had replastered part of the kitchen as damp treatment. The Ombudsman sought evidence from the landlord about the work it may have done to treat the damp and mould. However, there has been no evidence provided of damp inspections or work it carried out as treatment.
There was a failing by the landlord to keep clear and accurate records of work it or its contractors complete in this case. The repair logs provided do not list any work related to the replacement of the kitchen, treatment of damp and mould, or changes to the bathroom. As a result, the Ombudsman has been unable to fully determine what works were carried out at the property. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repairs. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
In its final response the landlord said it had no medical evidence that meant the works could not be done around the resident. There is no evidence that shows the landlord sought any recommendations from medical professionals. The records show the resident directed the landlord to her support services and had them contact the landlord on her behalf throughout. It should have discussed her circumstances with those professionals to have a better understanding of the impact of its decisions. In this regard the Ombudsman finds the landlord failed to treat the resident fairly.
The landlord referred to its property standard in correspondence with the resident. It considered the property to meet this standard on the basis that it was clean and that all urgent repairs had been completed. It is not reasonable to consider plastering, flooring and the replacement of a kitchen to be minor repairs. The Ombudsman finds it was unreasonable to expect a vulnerable person moving into a new home to be immediately subject to significant repair work.
Just because the landlord has a legal obligation to do something or its policy says to do something, it does not mean it is always reasonable. A landlord should look at the individual circumstances of the resident to decide if it needs to adapt its attitude or approach to support a person that is vulnerable. It should use its best endeavours to support its resident’s to be able to sustain their tenancy however that support is required in that circumstance. It failed to do that in this case. It did offer some support to help the resident manage her rent payments but did not fully consider the impact the repairs would have on the resident.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman seeks to find whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
There were significant and inappropriate delays in the repairs, despite the resident’s concerns about her health. The landlord failed to make reasonable adjustments to ensure that she was able to move into the property. There was a lack of monitoring, poor communication, and an absence of proactivity. The landlord did not complete the repair or manage the appointments in line with its repair policy and this caused undue distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The redress offered by the landlord in its stage 2 response did not put things right or resolve the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The compensation of £256.77 for its finding that the property was uninhabitable between 19 October and 1 November 2022 did not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. She took considerable time and trouble chasing her repairs and would have been at greater inconvenience had she moved into the property prior to the work being complete. Its offer of £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its record keeping was reasonable in the circumstances. However, its offer of £150 for her time and trouble between July and October 2022 was not reflective of the inconvenience caused to the resident.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlords handling of the property’s condition on letting and the time taken for the it to complete the subsequent repairs. The landlord should pay additional compensation of £1300 for the delays in completing these works, for the resident’s time and the distress and inconvenience caused. This is reflective of the time the resident was unable to occupy her home.

The landlord’s complaint handling

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure, good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.
In this case the landlord actively sought to clarify the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction on 25 September 2022. It raised the stage 1 complaint as a result and provided a response 11 days later, which was compliant with its policy. It set out how it would learn from the problems with its communication. It should have offered some means of redress for the failures identified.
The landlord’s communication and responses to the escalation of the complaint at stage 2 were reasonable and demonstrative of good practice. When it recognised that further investigation was required it notified the resident that it would need additional time to respond to the complaint. Although the response was sent 3 working days past its expected target, the landlord acknowledged the delay and apologised in the stage 2 response. It gave a reasonable explanation and was fair with the resident in doing so.
The Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Although the compensation provided was disproportionate to the impact on the resident, it demonstrated how it would learn from outcomes and put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the property’s condition on letting and the time taken for the landlord to complete the subsequent repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the condition of the property when the resident signed her tenancy and the time taken for it to complete the subsequent repairs.
2. Pay the resident £1,856.77 (with the £556.77 already paid to the resident to be deducted from this, meaning that the difference of £1,300 is now due). This comprises:
  1. £1300 for its response to complaints about the condition of the property when the resident signed her tenancy and the time taken for it to complete the subsequent repairs.
3. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information when reviewing its record keeping procedures. This sets out the benefits of good record keeping and provides recommendations for landlords.

https://hos.staging.civiccomputing.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Insight-report-issue-14-FINAL.pdf