Peabody Trust (202221914)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221914

Peabody Trust

30 April 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. The condition of the property at the time the resident mutually exchanged.
2. The resident’s reports of repair regarding:
  1. the electrics.
  2. the structural concerns.
3. The resident’s temporary accommodation whilst the repairs were being completed.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Record keeping.
2. Level of redress offered.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident occupies a two-bedroom house under an assured tenancy agreement. The resident mutually exchanged to the property on 8 August 2022. The resident’s household contains two dependent children.
The landlord conducted a pre-exchange inspection of the property on 20 April 2022 and deemed the property to be in generally poor condition. The resident later reported to her landlord:
1. The floor was sloping in the living room and the front door was dipping on 19 August 2022.
2. A tree growing in the drainage before the assignment of the tenancy on 22 May 2022. The resident re-reported this on or around 12 September 2022.
3. Hazards with the electrics on or around 19 October 2022 after British Gas found an exposed live wire when it tried to set up the electrical meter.
The landlord attended the property on or around 21 October 2022 to assess the sloping floor. The contractor recommended a further survey because there was no support to the supporting walls on either side of the hallway and there were cracks at the top of the wall. During this time, the resident chose to move her family out of the property due to safety concerns and requested frequent updates from the landlord about when the survey would occur.
The resident said she commissioned a defect survey for the property on 24 November 2022 because the landlord failed to respond to her requests for an update about when it would attend the property. This survey noted structural concerns because rot and high moisture were affecting the joists and wall plates. This was causing weakness to the integrity of the structural support, and a corroded gas pipe running under the floor near the rotten timbers and cracked walls. It noted this could lead to a severe accident if the floor or wall were to collapse due to a failure in the supporting structure.
The landlord surveyed the property on 5 December 2022. It found the front room wall and the partition wall between the living room and the ground floor hall, lacked adequate structural support. It noted the other rooms on the ground floor were likely to be affected by a similar issue. It also said the property was unsafe and requested an urgent decant property whilst it investigated the issues further.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 21 November 2022 because:
1. The landlord failed to conduct an urgent survey of the property following its initial concerns about the structure in October 2022. It had also failed to communicate with her when she chased the landlord to make an appointment.
2. The distress caused by the lack of urgency and action by the landlord because of the danger the property posed to the safety of her family should the wall collapse.
3. She had not lived in her property since the mutual exchange but was still paying rent for it.
4. The landlord had failed to complete the outstanding repairs to the drain and the electrics, as well as its landlord had failed to communicate with her when she chased it for updates.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 16 February 2023. It said it should have completed the repairs sooner and it was attempting to complete them as soon as possible. It listed an extensive scope of works and said it would nominate a contractor by the end of the week and the repairs would take 2 further weeks to complete.
The resident escalated her complaint on 6 March 2023 because the landlord had not started the works, responded to her attempts to chase the repairs, or explained when it intended to start them. In addition, she said it had consistently failed to give timely updates about when her temporary accommodation was due to expire which had left her feeling unsettled and anxious. The resident remained in temporary accommodation until 5 May 2023.
The landlord later provided the resident with a significant scope of work to deal with the structural concerns it had identified. It said it completed all the repairs by 17 March 2023.
In its final response on 17 April 2023, the landlord said:
1. It had completed the works.
2. The resident was raising recommended works that it was not required to carry out. It said some of the repairs she had raised were not being dealt with as part of the initial complaint.
3. Further works were the liability of the tenant as per its mutual exchange policy.
4. It recognised that it had delayed carrying out the repairs and offered £250 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience.
5. Its complaint handling had been poor due to a recent merger.
On 20 April 2023, the resident disputed the landlord’s offer of compensation and final response. She said it had not addressed her full complaint or considered the impact of its failures on her family. On 24 April 2023, the landlord offered the resident £895 because it felt the compensation offered at stage 2 was inadequate. The resident said she declined the offer because it did not remedy the impact or cover the costs of the repairs, she paid for to make the property safe.
The resident is seeking:
1. An acknowledgment and apology for what she said were extensive failures by the landlord.
2. The landlord to explain why the failures occurred and what it would do to ensure the same thing would not happen again to other residents.
3. Increased compensation for the impact of the failures and to compensate for the cost of completing some of the repairs the landlord said it would carry out.
4. An independent inspection to assess the quality of the works carried out by the landlord to date, due to the concerns over workmanship and the materials used.
5. The outstanding works to be completed, to be followed by an independent post-inspection report where she is present.

Assessment and findings

Record keeping

The Ombudsman notes:
1. The landlord failed to provide adequate repair records that provided sufficient detail to account for what it did during all the appointments at the resident’s property for the repair jobs on its records.
2. The repair records it did provide, at times, did not have information about all the repairs and surveys the landlord agreed to, the associated appointments it made for these, what happened during the appointments, and any follow-up work required.
3. The post-completion survey lacked sufficient detail to explain why it had concluded that the completed works had been assessed as meeting the required standard.
4. The landlord failed to provide adequate records of the complaint journey because it failed to provide some of the important communications it had with the resident about her initial complaint. The resident provided these records to the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs, complaint handling, and communications with residents. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ abilities to identify, determine liability for, and respond to problems when they arise.
As the Ombudsman has not received the necessary detail in these records, we have been unable to provide an extensive opinion on this element of the complaint. The Ombudsman considers this to be severe maladministration because it hampered the investigation and because there was a significant failure in record keeping and/or sharing the relevant information. This is because it failed to provide adequate records for the repairs, complaint handling, and communications with the resident.

The condition of the property at the time of the mutual exchange

The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states:
1. It will obtain a valid electrical certificate before approving an exchange.
2. When repairs are reported, it will complete them before the exchange takes place unless the surveyor advises otherwise.
3. It will inspect the conditions of properties to identify any repairs that may be needed and notify the outgoing and incoming tenants of any repairs they will be responsible for before or after the move takes place.
4. Incoming tenants agree to accept the condition of the property they are exchanging into and accept responsibility for carrying out their own inspection of the property before the exchange.
The resident told this service that she was concerned that the landlord completed a pre-exchange survey and remained unaware of serious hazards with the electrics. British Gas identified an electrical hazard on or around 19 October 2022, when it came to fitting the electric meter and was unable to because of an exposed live wire that needed to be made safe.
Although the landlord inspected the property on 20 April 2022, this inspection was to record the condition of the property based on visuals. In addition, there is no evidence that the former resident put the landlord on notice of any electrical defects at the property. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to determine if the landlord was aware of any electrical issues before the resident’s reports, which were dated after the mutual exchange took place.
There is evidence that the landlord intended to delay the initial exchange date because it was doing an electrical inspection of the property. This was appropriate and in line with its policy. However, there is no evidence to show if this was completed and therefore, we have been unable to confirm whether the landlord knew about the electrical issue before the resident was assigned the property and reported it. The Ombudsman considers this to be an example of poor record keeping, which has been a theme in this complaint.
The resident had helped the former tenant clear the garden before the exchange to allow the swap to go ahead. On 22 May 2022, she sent the landlord pictures of the clear garden and reported that there was a tree growing in the external drain and there were external cracks in the brickwork. The resident later told the landlord that she thought it would have completed any repairs that were its responsibility before the exchange took place. The landlord said it was sorry the resident thought this and because the resident was not a tenant when she first raised the repairs it did not complete the repairs.
It is concerning to note that the landlord did not act on this repair when the resident reported it, because it said, the resident was not a tenant at that time. The Ombudsman can see no exclusion in the landlord’s mutual exchange policy preventing it from accepting the report of the resident in May 2022. The landlord would have been responsible for the repair because of its statutory obligations to maintain the structure of the property. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have acknowledged the resident’s report and to have explained its position at an early opportunity.
Consequentially, it missed an opportunity to resolve the repair at an earlier stage, which would have mitigated the resident’s complaint. It also failed to be clear and manage the resident’s expectations about what it would do, before the exchange, and what she could do to ensure it carried out its repair responsibilities.
The Ombudsman considers there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled this complaint element because:
1. It failed to communicate with the resident after she reported the repair.
2. It failed to be clear about what it would and would not do before the exchange of the property.
3. Its policy was unclear about whether it would accept reports of repairs from prospective residents during an exchange.

The electrics

The evidence shows the resident reported the faulty electrics on or around 20 October 2022. In addition, on 25 November 2022, British Gas issued a ’Notification of Dangerous Situation’ after re-attempting to fit the meter and finding the electrics remained unsafe. The resident re-reported this issue to the landlord on 14 occasions between 20 October 2022 and 27 April 2023.
The Ombudsman notes the landlord raised a repair on 20 October 2022. At that time, there was internal communication discussing whether the issue was the liability of itself or British Gas. The landlord duplicated the repair order on 26 October 2022. It raised another repair on or around 30 November 2022. On 5 December 2022, the landlord noted it needed to replace and run a new tail cable. There were no further appointments or follow-up works from this job.
The landlord discussed the electrics internally in January 2023. It concluded the electrical works remained incomplete although they had been assigned to a contractor. There is no evidence the landlord took further action after this finding. The landlord then surveyed the property on or around 17 March 2023 and confirmed it had carried out an electrical test.
The resident and the landlord agree that the landlord attended the property between 27 April 2023 and 28 April 2023 to complete the electrical repair. This was 132 working days after the resident first reported the issue.
The evidence shows the landlord repaired after the resident requested to procure her own electrician in April 2023 because of her concerns and the considerable delay she had experienced.
The Ombudsman considers:
1. The records show the landlord was aware in January 2023 that the repair remained outstanding but missed an opportunity to follow up and complete the work.
2. The landlord unreasonably delayed in repairing and that it acted outside of the timeframes within its repairs policy.
3. The landlord acted incompetently in raising and following up on the repairs despite the resident’s extensive communication with it chasing the repairs.
Its failure to act in a reasonable time to fix the repair caused the resident considerable time and inconvenience in pursuing the repair to completion over an extended period. Although the resident was in temporary accommodation for some of this time, the landlord’s obligations under its repair policy for priority repairs remained.
For the reasons noted above, the Ombudsman considers this to be severe maladministration. This is because this left the resident feeling that she could not trust the landlord to make good on its repair obligations. She also said this left her feeling ignored. It is concerning to note after the resident requested to carry out the works at her own expense, it completed the repairs. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have monitored such an urgent repair, which posed risks to the health and safety of both the resident who was able to enter the property and of its operatives, through to completion without the involvement of the resident.

The structural concerns

On 19 August 2022, the resident said she reported structural concerns as detailed in paragraph 4(a). The landlord’s repair records note the floorboards being rotten and the hallway dipping on 5 September 2022. The landlord responded by arranging an inspection of the property on 21 October 2022. The evidence shows the resident chased this appointment on 5 occasions.
At the inspection, the landlord noted that it took up floorboards and both supporting walls which divide the hallway and from the front room had no support. The landlord agreed that a surveyor would need to be present before the resident laid new floors. There was also cracking at the top of the walls. It said it needed to carry out further investigations.
The resident told the Ombudsman that the operative advised her to wait no longer than 7 days to hear from the landlord for the survey because of the concerns they had over the danger posed by the structure. The evidence shows the resident chased the landlord on 7 occasions between 24 October 2022 and 30 November 2022. During this time, the resident was told by the landlord that it would not follow up on the repair because it was “too soon.”
The records show that the landlord acknowledged internally that it needed to request a surveyor to attend due to structural concerns on 27 October 2022. In addition, whilst the resident was chasing this, the landlord raised other repairs but not the structural survey. The landlord referred the issue to its duty surveyor on both 27 October 2022 and 4 November 2022. The landlord conducted its survey on 5 December 2022. This was four months after the initial report.
The Ombudsman considers that the nature of the repair noted by the landlord’s contractors in October 2022 required an urgent response. The landlord acted unreasonably by failing to urgently raise the job for the surveyor to inspect the property. The landlord’s response to the resident showed that it did not act on the inspection urgently because:
1. It took 4 and 10 working days respectively to raise the survey from the date the resident said she reported the issue.
2. It took 31 working days to carry out the survey from the date the resident said she reported the issue.
3. It also told her it was too soon to chase the repair after a week had elapsed from the initial inspection.
4. It consistently failed to follow up on the job despite the resident’s concerns and repeated chasing. Despite the significant safety concerns raised, there is no evidence the landlord considered an emergency decant or other mitigation whilst it arranged for a surveyor to attend.
The delay in completing the survey is concerning when the nature of the repairs could have had a serious and potentially fatal impact on the health and safety of the resident and her family. This was caused by a failure to categorise the survey appropriately as an urgent action as well as a failure to follow the timeframes in its repairs policy.
The resident said she commissioned a defect survey on the property on 24 November 2022 because she was becoming increasingly concerned by the landlord’s lack of action. The survey noted:
1. Cracks in the wall in the living room and entrance hall and sagging in the living room floor.
2. Rot had affected the joists and wall plate.
3. Rising damp.
4. High moisture readings in floor substructure caused by rotting timbers causing weakened integrity and poor structural support contributing to cracks in the wall.
The landlord conducted its own survey on 5 December 2022. It noted the following: “[The] structural damage to the front room floor also structural damage to the wall. The partition wall between the living room and the ground floor hall lacks adequate structural support. High moisture readings in the floor substructure caused the rotting of the timbers and weakened their integrity; this caused floor sagging which, in effect, due to poor structural support, contributed to the cracks in the wall. The suspended floors in the other rooms on the ground floor likely are affected by a similar issue. The surveying team attended and confirmed it [would] not be safe for the family to remain.”
The resident said the landlord did not come prepared with the tools to look at the property in the same detail as her private surveyor. She also mentioned that the landlord notified her about her household being placed in emergency accommodation within 2 hours of attending the property. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s findings at the survey and its decision to place the household into temporary accommodation confirmed the information it already had from its contractor, and the resident’s survey, about the severity of the hazards present.
The landlord’s structural engineer attended to assess the property on or around 1 January 2023. The report was provided by the landlord following an additional request for comments by the Ombudsman. The scope of the report said that “Full remedial solutions are outside the scope of this report. These should be designed based on a detailed schedule of defects in collaboration with [the landlord], the building team, and specialist remedial component.”
The recommendations made to the landlord were:
1. Install 3 additional Acrow bars under the wall which divides the living room and ground floor hallway to the front of the property.
2. Conduct an intrusive survey of the front elevation wall to determine the wall build-up to establish the point of water/moisture ingress.
3. Conduct an intrusive survey of the wall that divides the living room and ground floor hallway to determine the build-up.
4. Inspect the rear of the living room for a closer inspection of the load-bearing wall to the back of the living room.
5. Conduct an intrusive survey of the wall that divides the living room and ground floor hallway to determine the build-up.
6. Arrange for an arboriculturist to assess the stability of all the trees on the property and to the front of the property.
7. Arrange for the removal of the tree growing in the external garden gutter in line with the arboriculturist survey recommendations.
8. Arrange an intrusive survey of the bathroom floor to establish the floor typology and ensure all areas of the floor are properly supported to establish the function of the anchors installed at the first-floor level which the tenant has said was installed at the time the bathroom floor was reinstated.
9. Arrange a CCTV drainage survey to check the extent of damage done by tree growth in the pipework.
10. Repairing and reinstating the roofing coping above the kitchen.
11. A recommendation for all pipes and the roof to be inspected for leaks.
12. To make good to all ceiling and wall finishes where there is cracking and damp.
After the landlord’s survey, there is no evidence that it provided the resident with a scope of works until it issued its stage 1 response in February 2023. The landlord told the resident the scope of works was those detailed in paragraph 44 of this report.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord failed to manage its communication with the resident about what it intended to do in response to its findings at the resident’s property. This was inappropriate because it meant the resident was chasing the landlord for what it was going to do about its findings. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have provided this information to the resident promptly.
On 16 February 2023, the landlord told the resident it would complete the repairs, within two weeks of a contractor being appointed.
The repair records show the repairs were completed as follows:
1. Install an additional three bars under the wall that divides the living room and ground floor hallway to the front of the property – the landlord said it completed this repair by 17 March 2023. This was 146 working days after the resident’s initial report. The resident told this service she paid an independent contractor to conduct this repair.
2. Conduct an intrusive survey of the front elevation wall to determine the wall build-up to establish the point of water/moisture ingress – the landlord did not provide sufficient evidence of this survey being completed or its findings. The resident told this service she paid an independent contractor to carry this out and the associated work.
3. Arrange for an inspection of the rear of the living room for a closer inspection of the load-bearing wall to the back of the living room. The landlord did not provide evidence of carrying out this repair, the survey, or the findings of its survey. The resident told this service she paid an independent contractor to create a hatch for the inspection.
4. Conduct an intrusive survey of the wall that divides the living room and ground floor hallway to determine the build-up. The landlord said it completed a repair to this area by 17 March 2023 by building 4 brick pillars and 2 Acrow bars under the wall. This was 146 working days after the resident’s initial report. The landlord did not provide evidence of its survey of the wall to determine the build-up or its findings.
5. Instruct an arboriculturist to assess the stability of all the trees on the property. The landlord provided the findings to its tree officer on 20 December 2022. The recommendations were that the tree was of high amenity value and removal would not be an option or likely to be granted by the local authority due to it being within a conservation area. However, it recommended that the wall be removed and a new gate post be installed. There is no evidence the matter was referred to the Local Authority for consideration or that the follow-on work was completed.
6. Arrange for the removal of the tree growing in the external garden gutter in line with the arboriculturist survey recommendations. The landlord obtained a quote on 26 October 2022 to remove three sycamore trees. In April 2023, it told the resident, that when she chased this repair, it was outside of the scope of works and separate from her original complaint. In May 2023, it said it would not comment on the tree further because of its stance. However, it re-raised the works on 4 May 2023. There has been no evidence of this repair being completed.
7. Conduct an intrusive survey of the bathroom floor to establish the floor typology and ensure all areas of the floor were properly supported to establish the function of the anchors installed at the first-floor level which the tenant has said was installed at the time the bathroom floor was reinstated. The landlord said it completed a repair to this area by 17 March 2023 by removing the bathroom floor and supporting the subfloor joists and hangers. This was 146 working days after the resident’s initial report. However, it did not provide evidence of its intrusive survey or the findings of this.
8. Arrange a CCTV drainage survey to check the extent of damage done by tree growth in the pipework. The landlord did not provide evidence that this survey was completed or its findings.
9. The roof coping above the kitchen be repaired and reinstated before the wall is inspected to ensure there is no damage to the wall. The landlord said it raised this repair for the roof area on 28 November 2022, however, this is not detailed in its repair logs. The resident said when the roofing contractor attended it had concerns that the roof could not be properly repaired due to the presence of asbestos. The landlord told the resident it attended on 1 February 2023 to fix “[the] area where extension roof meets house wall sealed due to cracks along the surface. 10m of gutter cleaned and realigned. 8m of box gutter cleared.” This was 114 working days after the resident’s initial report.
10. Arrange for all pipes and the roof to be inspected for leaks. The landlord did not provide evidence of its inspection including when this was completed or its findings.
11. Arrange to make good to all finishes of ceiling and wall where there is cracking and damp. The landlord said it completed this repair by 17 March 2023. This was 146 working days after the resident’s initial report.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord unreasonably delayed completing the required works within its repair policy timeframe. In addition, there is no evidence of it carrying out any of the 7 surveys it said it would complete or their findings.
The Ombudsman noted there was a completion report for the completed works dated 17 March 2023 and it detailed the works as “signed off.” The works were detailed as follows:
1. Provide additional support to the living room/hallway wall as specified in the structural engineer’s report.
2. Build 4 brick pillars underneath the living room/hallway.
3. Install an additional 3 Acrow bars under the wall which divides the living room and ground floor hallway to the front of the property.
4. Remove the bathroom floor, correctly support the subfloor joist and hangers, and lay new nonslip flooring in the bathroom.
5. Prepare the subfloor in the living room and hallway.
6. Correctly support and install new 6 mm ply boards.
7. Hack out defective cracks in the living room and front bedroom. Apply hard wall skim finish and completely redecorate prepared areas.
8. Carry out electrical test and supply NIEC cert. Renew earth bonding.
9. Remove and dispose of all debris.
The Ombudsman notes the completion report does not include all the repairs recommended or the required surveys, nor any follow-on repairs identified during the landlord’s investigations. The landlord therefore failed to carry out all the surveys and repairs it said it would do and to maintain adequate repair records.
In addition, the report was not sufficiently detailed to explain how the landlord concluded it had completed the repairs listed in the report to a good standard. This is because although there are pictures, they are too small to identify the works properly. They are also not accompanied by any reference points or commentary. This is concerning to note as this is what the landlord referred the resident to when she raised some of the repairs had been carried out to a poor standard. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have explored the resident’s concerns further by re-inspecting the property.
Importantly, there is no mention of the landlord’s approach to the resolution of the leak and associated damp which the resident said remained unresolved. If this was not repaired any repairs relating to the internal structure would not have been lasting and effective. This was a significant failing in both resolving one of the substantive issues and in its record keeping.
The evidence shows that there were many occasions where the landlord gave the resident a timeframe for completion of the works but failed to meet these deadlines. This often resulted in the resident chasing the landlord for the repair to be completed and, in response, the landlord extended her stay in temporary accommodation further. There was limited evidence of the landlord responding internally to manage the repairs as a result of the resident’s communications. This was inappropriate.
The landlord ought to have kept to the timeframes and revised timeframes it gave to the resident for the completion of the repairs. If it was unable to meet those deadlines, it should have contacted the resident to explain why and to give a new timeframe. Its failure to do so was an example of managing the repairs poorly.
During internal communications on 30 March 2023, the landlord concluded the works to be completed were “vague.” It said that the property needed to be reinspected to review the works required and if it needed to carry out the CCTV survey. It extended the resident’s temporary accommodation for 4 weeks. However, it told the resident the works order was completed, including the surveys and the resident had not been specific about what had not been completed.
This was inappropriate because the Ombudsman considered at the time the landlord was telling the resident the works were complete, it knew that the CCTV survey was incomplete, and it needed to confirm outstanding works required at the property. As a result, the landlord misstated its position on the repairs to the resident. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have been clear about what it knew remained incomplete and the need for a further inspection to review outstanding repairs.
At the same time, it went on to say to the resident it was concerned she was raising works outside of the scope of the works it had agreed. It said it could not determine what had not been completed based on its list and asked her to be more specific. The evidence shows at this stage, the resident had copied the landlord’s scope of works word for word on several occasions and explained which works she believed to be outstanding.
The resident sought support from the local Mayor around January 2023 when she was chasing the progress of the repairs. Although there is evidence the landlord’s surveyor said the walls did not have adequate support, it wrote to the Mayor and said the wall did have adequate support, but further investigations were necessary. This is concerning to note because the landlord did not provide an accurate reflection of its findings. This impacted the resident because she felt the landlord had misrepresented its position on the state and progress of the repairs which caused avoidable distress.
The resident told this service the landlord did not complete the majority of the repairs. She said she had to pay an independent contractor to carry out the following work:
1. Removal of existing stud wall in the front section of the adjoined living/dining area.
2. Removal of existing plaster and render to expose the original brickwork.
3. Treat the wall with a damp-proofing solution.
4. Re-render the entire wall.
5. Baton out of the wall in preparation for the new stud wall.
6. Apply three insulated plasterboards.
7. Plaster wall with multi-finish plaster.
8. Remove current floorboards.
9. Dig 2 small foundations to build 2 new support walls to hold the existing wall above (the current wall is sitting on old floorboards).
10. Build a new wall under the joists using concrete blocks.
11. Install new joists on the existing ones to level the floor and bolt them together.
12. Install new moisture-resistant chipboard on the new joists for the bedroom and hallway.
13. Remove the current floorboards to the front room and hallway up to the corners.
14. Add new joists to level the floor.
15. Install new moisture chipboard.
The Ombudsman considers there was severe maladministration with the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of repair. This is because:
1. The landlord unreasonably delayed inspecting the property despite the recommendations of its initial contractor in October 2022.
2. The landlord failed to show it had conducted all the repairs and surveys it had identified within the timescales of its repairs policy.
3. The landlord unreasonably delayed in carrying out the repairs it said it did complete as part of its scope of works.
4. The landlord failed to adequately address the resident’s concerns about the workmanship. The post-completion report it provided was insufficient to demonstrate how it had assessed the repairs or come to the finding they were of a good standard.
5. The landlord misled the resident’s representative about its findings in the property.
6. The landlord failed to share the findings of its surveyors at the earliest opportunity, meaning that it did not manage the resident’s expectations.
7. The landlord did not explain to the resident its position on which recommendations it considered necessary from its structural report and those it deemed unnecessary based on what the resident said was incomplete.
8. The landlord failed to consistently respond to the resident when she chased repairs and action on its systems.
9. The landlord failed to deliver the repairs within the revised timeframes it gave the resident or provide updates to her about when she could expect the repairs to be completed. The resident said this meant the resident paid for some of the work to be completed independently.
10. The landlord said that the tree within the drain work was not part of the resident’s original complaint, but this was not the case.
11. The landlord failed to competently manage and follow up with the repairs through to completion which resulted in delays and the need to extend the resident’s temporary accommodation.

Temporary accommodation whilst the repairs were being completed

The landlord’s decant policy states:
1. It intends to keep the cost of emergency hotel accommodation down. Once completion timeframes of works are known and are within a 4-week timeframe, it will try to find alternative accommodation through:
  1. Family or friends.
  2. Local authority temporary accommodation.
  3. Its own void properties.
  4. Alternative decant accommodation contractors.
2. In the event repairs will take longer than 4 weeks it will liaise with the resident and accommodation providers to arrange an apartment stay.
3. It will pay a food allowance to those staying in hotel accommodation of up to £15 per person per day for ages 13 and older and up to £8 per child aged under 13 where they do not have access to a kitchen. The payment will be made in arrears.
4. Depending on individual circumstances it states it may also reimburse residents for other costs such as additional travel costs.
On 6 March 2023, the resident told the landlord that she was unhappy with the way it was handling her temporary accommodation placement. She said the landlord was not giving her enough notice when her placement was due to expire, about what it intended to do next including whether she would be staying or moving. She said this caused her family distress because she could not adequately prepare her dependent children and the household’s belongings. In addition, she told the Ombudsman that this was a repeated theme and caused her anxiety over what would happen next.
The landlord placed the resident and her family into hotel accommodation on or around 5 December 2022. At the time, the landlord said the work would take 2 weeks to complete. The landlord moved the household to a self-contained flat on or around 26 January 2023. It paid a sustenance payment of £2,944 on or around 30 January 2023. The resident moved back to the property on or around 5 May 2023.
The records show that whilst the resident was in hotel accommodation, she expressed her concerns about the placement ending at short notice and the lack of communication about what would happen next on multiple occasions. In addition, she expressed the difficulties hotel accommodation posed to day-to-day life with dependent children because of their location and lack of amenities.
There is no evidence presented to the Ombudsman that showed the landlord reviewed the resident’s placement at the time the repair works exceeded 4 weeks. There is evidence of the landlord being aware the works would take at least 6 further weeks to complete on 18 January 2023. At this point, the household had been in temporary accommodation for 6 weeks and the timeframe for the completion of the works had been revised and increased twice.
It is the opinion of the Ombudsman that the landlord failed to show that it regularly reviewed the resident’s temporary accommodation placement, to explore any alternative options it could provide, after 4 weeks had elapsed. The time it offered a self-contained unit was after a series of communications from the resident expressing the difficulties she was experiencing.
In addition, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have provided the resident with timely updates to ensure she was aware of whether it intended to extend her hotel placement. This was maladministration because it failed to follow its decant policy in trying to seek alternative accommodation. This caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident and her household.
The resident explained to the Ombudsman that the hotel placements were often a long distance from her home and her childcare providers. This caused the household physical and financial difficulty because of the additional distance required to ensure the household was able to get to where it needed to be.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord would have limited ability to control the location of the hotel placements. This is because the demand and availability of hotel accommodation would be out of the landlord’s control. However, the landlord should have acted fairly by issuing the standardised subsistence payment due under its decant policy. The landlord did this after she had moved to self-contained temporary accommodation, this meant the resident was in avoidable financial difficulty. This was inappropriate and maladministration.
There has been no evidence presented to the Ombudsman that shows the landlord considered reimbursing the resident’s travel costs. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord, as part of its review of the temporary accommodation placement, to have explored this issue and any support it could provide in more detail to the resident. This was a service failure because the resident said she was in locations that increased pressure on the household because of the distance needed to travel to maintain ordinary daily life.
The records show that the landlord told the resident to move back to the property because it was safe to return on 27 April 2023. However, the repair records showed that its contractors still needed to make safe the electrics and carry out a full electrical inspection. The evidence shows the landlord continued to extend the temporary accommodation placement.
The internal communications of the landlord on 11 May 2023 question why the resident remained decanted when the works were complete in March 2023. The resident contested the works were complete at this time, she said this was because there were still incomplete repair works to the structure of the property. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to be certain the property was safe to return to before communicating this to the resident.
Overall, the Ombudsman considers there was severe maladministration with the way the landlord handled the resident’s temporary accommodation because:
1. It failed to provide timely updates in advance of hotel accommodation expiring.
2. It failed to show it reviewed the resident’s placement type when the works remained incomplete at the 4-week stage.
3. It failed to show it had appropriately assessed whether the property was fit to return to before telling the resident she could return home.
4. It failed to provide the resident with sustenance payments during the time she was in hotel accommodation which caused financial hardship.
5. It failed to show it had considered any further support it could have given the resident with travel costs.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s ‘Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states:
1. A landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so.
2. The landlord’s stage 1 responses must be issued within 10 working days of a complaint. It must notify residents of any delays and a new timeframe should be agreed with them.
3. The landlord’s stage 2 responses must be issued within 20 working days of an escalation request. It must notify residents of any delays and a new timeframe should be agreed with them.
4. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
5. Complaint responses must be issued to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint procedure states that it must identify any learning points for the organisation and/or contractors arising from the complaint.
The resident had raised her dissatisfaction about the repairs in November 2022. The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) requires landlords to accept complaints unless there is a good reason not to. Good reasons include where legal proceedings on the same issue have been ‘issued’. It is concerning to note in response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord said the complaint would not be accepted because the repairs remained outstanding. In addition, the Ombudsman notes the landlord did not provide this communication to the Ombudsman, which is another example of poor record keeping.
The Ombudsman considers this to be a significant failure of the landlord to follow the complaint handling principles in the Code. It is also an example of the landlord failing to follow its complaint policy which impacted the resident by delaying her recourse to this service.
The resident asked for an update on 24 November 2022. The landlord’s internal communications show it recognised it had “not done much.” However, the complaints process was not initiated until this service intervened in January 2023, some 3 months later. That was not appropriate.
During this time, the resident raised her escalating mental health vulnerabilities and distress at the situation regarding the repairs. In addition, the landlord recognised it had not followed up on its repairs. The landlord’s approach was inappropriate.
Whilst the landlord ought to have responded to the stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, it responded 50 working days outside these timescales. That was an acceptable delay.
The resident escalated her complaint on 6 March 2023. The landlord issued its final response on 17 April 2023, which was ten working days outside the 20 working day timescale. In its response, the landlord said:
1. The works had been completed and the property has adequate supporting brickwork. The landlord’s contractor and the resident inspected the property and deemed it satisfactory.
2. The resident was raising recommended works that it was not required to carry out, and some were not being dealt with as part of the complaint. It also could not understand which repairs the resident was saying were outstanding.
3. The resident had accepted liability for damage and alterations of the outgoing tenant within the property as part of the mutual exchange.
4. There had been a merger between the landlord and another landlord meaning there was a backlog in complaints.
5. It apologised for the delay in completing the works and offered £250 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience, which was open to the resident to accept for 21 days before it expired.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord failed to consider and acknowledge the resident’s concerns about her temporary accommodation and its communications around this. This was a failure to follow the Code to address all the complaint points raised by the resident.
In addition, the response had stated incorrect dates for some of its appointments. Whilst the Ombudsman recognises this was in all likelihood a human error, this in combination with the failures experienced by the resident further undermined the resident’s faith in the landlord’s ability to conduct an accurate investigation.
The resident raised concerns in her formal complaint that the majority of the repairs had not been completed and she was dissatisfied with the workmanship. However, the landlord responded by stating the repairs were completed and enclosed a completion report. The post-completion report did not show the landlord considered the workmanship of the repairs.
The landlord failed to present adequate evidence to the resident and the Ombudsman that shows it had communicated its position on why all the repairs and surveys recommended in its structural survey were not carried out. In addition, the landlord said to the resident “It could not comment on the repairs because it was not a surveyor.” It also asked the resident to “stop referring [it] to the completion report”. The Ombudsman considers this lacked empathy. It was also a missed opportunity to make the resident feel that her concerns were being taken seriously and to explain its position with clarity.
The resident expressed frustration to this service because the landlord refused to acknowledge the outstanding repairs mentioned in its stage 1 response that it said it would carry out. There is evidence the resident provided a list of the repairs identical to those listed in the stage 1 response on several occasions, but the landlord referred to the repairs as new repairs and disputed that the repairs were those it said it would complete.
The Ombudsman considers there was severe maladministration with the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint because of the cumulative impact of the following failures:
1. It prevented the resident from raising her initial formal complaint, which is in contravention of the Code and the basic standards for complaint handling principles.
2. It failed to progress the resident’s complaint through its internal complaints process without the intervention of this service.
3. It failed to follow both the Code and its policy to issue complaint responses within the required timeframes.
4. It failed to consider and respond to all of the resident’s complaint points.
5. It failed, at times, to communicate with the resident sensitively and competently at a time when the resident was going through a distressing time.
6. It failed to adequately acknowledge its failures and any wider learning it would take from the complaint to improve its complaint handling and repairs provision.
Overall, this resulted in the resident feeling unheard and having to raise the same complaint repeatedly over a protracted period. Despite the landlord’s assertion of having reviewed the completion report, the Ombudsman’s perspective is that the report lacked sufficient detail to justify the conclusion that the repairs were of a good standard.

Level of redress

On 24 April 2023, the landlord offered the resident £895 because it felt the compensation offered at stage 2 was inadequate. This was made up of a further £250 for lack of communication, £200 for poor complaint handling and £225 goodwill payment for the surveyor’s costs which was conditional on the resident providing proof.
It is the opinion of the Ombudsman that the offer, when taken together as a whole with the landlord’s failings, was not proportionate to the severity of the failings identified in this report. In particular, the Ombudsman is concerned about the breakdown of trust and relationships during the complaints process because of how the landlord handled the complaint. The landlord also failed to assess and acknowledge its failures across the resident’s complaint points and explain what future learning it had identified. This was severe maladministration because the landlord failed to properly consider the impact of its failings on the residents and to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the condition of the property at the time of the mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman considers there was severe maladministration with:
1. The landlord’s handling of the reports of repairs.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary accommodation whilst the repairs were being completed.
3. The landlord’s record keeping.
4. The landlord’s handling of the level of redress.
5. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for the CEO to call the resident to apologise for the failures found in this report. It must also issue its apology in writing.
2. Pay the resident compensation as set out in paragraph 96 ‘compensation order.’
3. Arrange to inspect the property as set out in paragraph 97 ‘repairs order.’
4. Arrange for complaint handling refresher training for complaint handlers and ensure it specifically addresses the importance of accepting and progressing valid complaints. The landlord must provide documentary evidence to the Ombudsman of its staff having completed this.
5. Provide evidence of compliance with this order.
Within 8 weeks of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Self-assess against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ to consider and identify areas for staff training. It must provide a copy of the outcome of its review to its governing body and this service.
2. Conduct a case review of this case to identify:
  1. Why the initial survey required in October 2022 was not categorised as urgent and acted upon until December 2022.
  2. Why the repairs were not completed in its policy timeframes.
  3. Why the repairs were not followed up adequately despite the resident chasing them.
  4. How it can prevent this from happening again.
  5. How it can ensure it actively contacts residents when it experiences delays.
  6. Provide evidence of compliance with this order.

Compensation order

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident the full costs she said she incurred for completing the repairs the landlord said it would be completed at stage 1. This is to be based on the submission of receipts or other evidence showing proof of this expenditure.
2. Reimburse the full cost of the resident’s surveyor following a receipt provided by the resident.
3. Pay the resident £2,500 in recognition of:
  1. Distress and inconvenience for being left with a dangerous property for 31 working days before it is considered temporary accommodation.
  2. Poor complaint handling.
  3. Poor record keeping.

The landlord is entitled to deduct any payment already made to the resident as part of the internal complaints process from this figure. The compensation must be made directly to the resident unless otherwise agreed by her.

Repairs order

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Contact the resident to arrange a further inspection (survey) of the property. The inspection must be done by someone who has not been involved with the repairs at the property. The inspection must be arranged at a mutually convenient time for the parties but within 28 days of the date of this determination.
2. Within 14 days of the inspection, the landlord must provide a written report of the condition of the property. The survey report must identify any outstanding repairs or actions the landlord must take to ensure the property is fit for human habitation and safe for the resident. It must also include a schedule of repairs and works to be completed to remove or mitigate any structural concerns and its cause in the property.
3. If there are any works recommended, the landlord must use its best endeavours to start the works within 7 days of the date of the schedule of works and complete these within a period not exceeding 12 weeks. If it cannot start or conclude the works within this time, it must explain the reasons to the resident and the Ombudsman and explain when this will be done.
4. Once the works are completed the landlord must arrange for an independent assessment of the completed works to be conducted whilst the resident is present. This must include the work the landlord has already completed.
5. Provide evidence of compliance with this order no later than 12 weeks from the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord:
1. Circulate the Ombudsman’s spotlight report to staff responsible for raising and monitoring repairs: ‘Room for improvement’
2. Circulate the Ombudsman’s spotlight report to its complaint handling team: ‘Attitudes, respect, and rights. Relationship of Equals.’
3. Provide additional information to prospective mutual exchange tenants regarding the extent of its pre-exchange inspection for properties. For example, by making this information easily accessible on their website.
Assess the additional travel costs and associated expenses incurred by the resident during the decant and reimburse these.