Citizen Housing (202230553)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230553

Citizen Housing

13 September 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 the resident’s reports of:
1. No heating and hot water meaning he could not move in.
2. Repairs needed to the outhouse window.
3. Repairs needed to the kitchen.
4. Building waste having been left at the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association. Prior to moving to the property, the resident was a tenant of the landlord at a different property, which will be referred to as the former property in this report.
Under the tenancy agreement the term ‘property’ is defined as to include any “outbuilding…let under this agreement” and the section for ‘gifted’ items has been left blank. The agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property, fixtures and fittings it owns, and installations for the supply of services including heating and hot water. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The agreement also says the resident is responsible for keeping in repair any “shed…or other structures which are your responsibility”.
The landlord’s relet or ‘void’ standard policy says it aims to achieve “a high level of satisfaction” for new residents moving in. The policy sets out its minimum standards which include:
1. Sheds will be retained if safe and the resident will be responsible for them (known as ‘gifting’).
2. Outhouses will be left secure.
3. Rubbish will be removed from the property and gardens.
4. Gas will be capped before letting, and the resident is to contact it to have this uncapped and tested after letting.
5. Some repairs may take place after the resident has moved in and will be arranged. This could include kitchen replacement works. But the policy also says it aims for “minimum disruption from major works to the incoming tenant”.
Under its lettings policy a resident will be invited to view a property with a member of its staff before accepting a tenancy for it.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will categorise repairs as either emergency or standard. It says it will complete repairs “to published timescales” but fails to give these. It has told this Service that at the time of the complaint its published timescale to complete a standard repair was 12 working days.
Under its complaints policy the landlord defines a complaint as per paragraph 1.2 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It operates a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If it is unable to meet these timeframes it will contact the resident to request a further 10 working days extension, or longer by agreement in exceptional circumstances.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. If it needs a further 10 working days in exceptional circumstances, it must contact the resident to explain this. Any further delay beyond this must be agreed with the resident. It should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.9) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13).
The landlord has a compensation framework which sets out suggested amounts it can offer for service failure depending on severity, impact, any financial loss, and the resident’s actions. Its policy bands range from low impact (up to £250) to medium impact (£250-£699) to high impact (over £700).

Summary of events

The resident viewed the property on 5 August 2022 and signed the tenancy agreement. His tenancy started from that date. He spoke to the landlord’s contractor on 8 August 2022 to arrange for the gas supply to be uncapped and tested. The contractor booked this for 17 August 2022 which the landlord said was his preferred date. On the same day he called it to report the window in his brick-built outhouse (referred to as a shed) needed to be replaced. The records say the repair was cancelled after a few minutes.
On 17 August 2022 the contractor uncapped the gas and confirmed the boiler was left working. The resident called the landlord on 30 August 2022 to report his outhouse window again. He called it the following day and asked if his heating thermostat could be moved. On 5 September 2022 he called it again to chase up his window repair. He reported that he did not have heating or hot water on 23 September 2022. The landlord attended the same day and its job sheet confirmed he did have. He also reported repairs were needed for his kitchen plinths on 26 September 2022.
The landlord called the resident on 28 September 2022 as he had not ended his tenancy at the former property. It said he could be falling into arrears as he was now responsible for paying the rent for both properties. He said there were repairs needed including for the outhouse window which needed boarding, various repairs to the kitchen, and that his hot water was only repaired the previous day. The landlord noted these repairs would not have prevented him from moving in. (On 10 October 2022 the resident’s tenancy for the former property ended.)
In an internal email on 5 October 2022 the landlord confirmed the kitchen cupboard edges needed repairing, the outhouse window needed to be replaced as there was currently not one present, and a wheelie bin full of earth needed to be emptied. These were noted to be post-letting works. The resident called it on 12 October 2022 and said the council had refused to empty his bin because it was full of builder’s waste. It raised a job to empty this for 14 October 2022. On that date the resident called it and said someone had attended but did not empty the bin. It attended on 25 October 2022 to inspect the outhouse window and said a follow-on appointment was needed.
On 6 November 2022 the resident applied to the landlord to exercise the right to buy. He called it the following day to report intermittent hot water and that his radiators were not working. He emailed it the day after and said he was having trouble getting repairs done. He said when it attended it told him the repairs should have been completed before he moved in. On 10 November 2022 the landlord carried out repairs to vent and balance, or ‘bleed’, the radiators.
The same day the landlord called the resident and noted this in an internal email. It said when discussing the rent for both properties, he said he had been unable to move into the property for 6 weeks “because there was no water”. It also said he was expecting a call from “the voids team” to resolve his repairs issues.
On 6 November 2022 the resident’s right to buy application was rejected, as he did not qualify for the scheme.
The landlord raised repairs for the kitchen cupboards and the outhouse window on 21 November 2022. The resident also called it that day and reported his radiators were not working. It attended and bled the radiators on 23 November 2022. On 24 November 2022 it marked repairs to the plinths completed. That day he called it, and it noted that the kitchen was in poor condition and needed to be renewed. He called it the following day to report his heating was not working and it attended on 30 November 2022 and said it was working, but it made an improvement to a valve.
On 29 November 2022 the resident submitted a right to acquire application to the landlord. This was rejected on 6 December 2022 as he was in rent arrears. The same day he called it and asked when his new kitchen would be installed. It inspected the property following repairs to the kitchen on 8 December 2022. He reported no heating on 11 December 2022 and the landlord attended that day and showed him how to use the heating controls.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 December 2022 to make a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
1. Having reported some repairs during the viewing for the property and being told they would be repaired but they had not been. This included the outhouse window. As this had not been repaired some of his possessions had been damaged.
2. He had noticed further repairs after signing the tenancy agreement including the condition of the kitchen cupboards and cupboard doors.
3. His bins being left full of builder’s waste so that the council would not empty them.
4. Hot water and some radiators not working after the uncapping and test. He said this was fixed on 27 September 2022, but he still had a lack of heating.
5. Paying rent on both properties between 5 August 2022 and 6 October 2022 when he moved in, as before this the property was not fit to live in and he wanted a refund.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day. On 16 December 2022, in an internal email, it discussed the condition of the kitchen following its visit on 8 December 2022 and asked for it to be put onto the planned replacement programme for 2023. This was approved on 21 December 2022.
In an internal email on 23 December 2022 the landlord said it had spoken to the resident and the outhouse window had not been replaced and asked for this to be chased. It emailed again to chase this on 3 January 2023 and said it would re-raise the repair, as the previous member of staff responsible had left its employment. The same day the landlord called the resident and wrote to him to say his complaint was “on hold” while it was waiting for information on the window and kitchen replacements.
The landlord confirmed in an internal email on 4 January 2023 that the kitchen replacement had been added to the 2023 programme. On 10 January 2023 it re-raised the outhouse window replacement, and its notes state it should have completed this before letting the property.
On 10 January 2023 the landlord also provided its stage 1 response in which it:
1. Set out the resident’s complaint elements.
2. Said the bins had now been emptied.
3. Said he was aware of the repairs needed at the viewing but would not move in until they were completed. However, as there was not a health and safety issue the outstanding repairs would not have stopped him from moving in. For this reason, it would not be refunding any rent paid.
4. His repairs would have been delayed due to his right to buy and right to acquire applications.
5. Confirmed it had booked a repair for his outhouse window for 23 March 2023 and confirmed his kitchen was on that year’s list for replacement.
6. Did not say whether the complaint was upheld or not.
7. Regarding escalation, explained “If any new information or facts come to light, you can request a review of this outcome.”
The resident called the landlord the same day and asked to escalate his complaint, which the landlord acknowledged. The following day he emailed it with his reasons for wanting to escalate his complaint. These were:
1. He disputed that he knew about all the repairs until he had started to move in.
2. It was ridiculous for it to say not having hot water or heating was not a health and safety concern, and he only had partially working heating and hot water now.
3. He had had to wait over 7 months for the repairs to his outhouse.
4. He wanted to know why the kitchen replacement had not been completed before he moved in. All the repairs should have been completed before he moved in.
5. No waste had been collected and the landlord was lying.
On 25 January 2023 the resident called the landlord to ask when the kitchen would be replaced. It boarded up the outhouse window on 1 February 2023. In an internal email on 3 February 2023 it said the lettings team had referred repairs to the void team, but these were not acted upon. He called it again on 6 February 2023 to chase up works for the outhouse.
The landlord sent an internal email on 7 February 2023 about its stage 2 response. It said it was happy the void standard process had been followed even though it did not have a sign-off sheet. It then emailed him to ask for an extension of time of 3 working days as it was waiting for additional information. The following day it provided its stage 2 response in which it:
1. Responded to each of the resident’s escalation points.
2. Confirmed it aimed to achieve minimum standards in line with its voids standard policy, but that not all repairs would be identified during the voids process.
3. Explained that the repairs he reported were not health and safety concerns as they did not present an immediate threat to life or the structure of the property. He had reported a problem with his heating in September 2022 and it had confirmed it was working. It had attended further reports and repaired any faults.
4. Accepted there was a service failure for its delay in repairing his outhouse window which it noted during the void process. It apologised and said it had arranged an appointment for 23 March 2023.
5. Admitted it had identified issues with the kitchen cupboards during the void process. It had added the kitchen to that year’s replacement programme.
6. Apologised that the waste had not been collected as arranged and admitted it had identified this issue during the void process. However, it said it was not its responsibility and he should contact the council.
7. Apologised for any inconvenience caused and offered £200 compensation for this. However, it maintained it would not give a rent refund as there was no reason he could not have moved in. Acceptance of compensation was conditional upon signing its form, which stated “I am satisfied with the outcome of my case as a whole. Once payment is received, my case will be closed and not re-opened.”
8. Said that the resident could contact this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

On 13 February 2023 the landlord attended for the outhouse window and noted the resident told it the whole building needed to be repaired. It raised a new repair for the window on 24 April 2023. On 26 April 2023 he reported the outhouse roof was leaking. It attended on 10 August 2023 and did not find a leak.
The landlord’s records say on 27 September 2023 it cancelled the kitchen replacement due to a “live right to buy” application.
On 10 August 2023 the landlord installed a new window for the outhouse. It raised a repair to replace the roof on 23 August 2023 which it completed on 23 November 2023. Between 20 and 29 November 2023 in internal emails it said the kitchen replacement had been delayed due to the resident enquiring about the right to buy, however it has not provided any evidence to this Service.
The landlord has told this Service that the new kitchen instalment started on 23 January 2024. As part of mediation facilitated by the Ombudsman, it said that the outbuilding was the resident’s responsibility and so there was not a service failure in its handling of repairs to it. It also said, “it is not disputed that the kitchen was in poor condition and was ready for replacement at the start of the tenancy.” It offered increased compensation of £400 which the resident did not accept.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water meaning he could not move in

The resident has told this Service that he reported no heating and hot water soon after he moved in, to the landlord, by telephone. It has provided its records but there is no evidence of these calls. It is correct that he would not have had these services until his gas supply was uncapped on 17 August 2022. It promptly contacted him following the start of the tenancy to arrange this, said the date was picked by the resident, and there is no evidence he asked for this to be done sooner. The landlord followed its relet policy of capping and uncapping the gas, and its records say there were no issues after the uncapping and test.
The resident called the landlord on 31 August 2022 to ask if his thermostat could be moved but did not report any heating or hot water issues at that time. The first report of lack of heating or hot water was made on 23 September 2022 and the landlord promptly attended the same day. Its records say there was heating and hot water, but the resident later said this was repaired on 27 September 2022 although there is no record of a repair on that date.
Within its stage 1 response the landlord said some repairs would become apparent after the resident moved in but there was no health and safety issue which prevented him from moving in. It maintained its position in its stage 2 response and said he first reported a heating and hot water repair in September 2022, and it found this was working.
Having reviewed the evidence there is nothing to support that there was no heating or hot water at the property. There is also no evidence the resident reported this before 23 September 2022, while there is evidence of the other repairs he had reported. When the resident did report the issue, the landlord attended promptly to this, and to future reports, within a reasonable timeframe and in line with its repairs policy.
The landlord’s decision not to offer any refund of rent for the period the resident retained both properties was reasonable. The was no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs needed to the outhouse window

The outhouse in the garden of the property is a brick-built, solid, building which can be used for storage. It has been referred to as a shed by both the resident and the landlord, but having reviewed photographs of it, this is not a correct description. The tenancy defines ‘property’ as including outbuildings and does not include anything within its section for ‘gifted’ items which the resident would own and be responsible for. The tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for the repair of sheds or other structures which he is responsible for but does not state which he is responsible for. The landlord was therefore responsible for repairing and maintaining the outhouse.
Even if the above position is incorrect, and the resident was responsible for maintaining the outhouse, this would have only been reasonable if it were let to him in good condition. It would not have been fair in the circumstances to have expected him to replace a window which was not present when let.
Under the landlord’s relet policy it says its minimum standard is that outbuildings will be left secure. The outhouse did not have a window and so was not secure, which was a failing at the point of letting. It accepted it was aware that the window needed to be replaced during the void works prior to letting in an internal email on 5 October 2022.
Although the resident reported the window 3 days after his tenancy started, and chased this multiple times, the landlord did not inspect until 25 October 2022, nearly 3 months later which was an unreasonable delay. Following his stage 1 complaint, it called him a month after its inspection and asked him if the window had been replaced. This showed a lack of record keeping or ownership of the repair which was a further failing. It had to reraise the repair, as a member of its staff had left, which again showed a failing in its processes and demonstrated silo working delaying the repair.
Although it is positive the landlord boarded up the window, it did not do this until February 2023, 7 months after the start of the tenancy. While it was not a health and safety issue, the property had been let with an outhouse which the resident had not been able to use. In reality he had used it and said possessions had been damaged as a result. However, the resident accepted this risk, and the landlord would not be expected to compensate him for his losses.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord correctly admitted there had been a service failure due to its delay in repairing the window. It offered £200 compensation and gave a date for the works, which was positive. However, it failed to complete them on that date, and did not replace the window until 10 August 2023, over a year since the start of the tenancy. The landlord’s standard repairs timeframe was 12 working days. Even allowing extra time if the window had to be manufactured, this was an unacceptable delay in breach of its policy.
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 takes into account 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.
The landlord had not followed its relet policy or its repairs policy. It had delayed for over a year in completing the repair. The resident had chased it on many occasions, and only following his stage 2 complaint was the repair completed. There was maladministration, which caused inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect this an order has been made that the landlord pay £300 compensation to the resident. This figure is inclusive of its £200 offer made at stage 2 of its complaints process and is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs needed to the kitchen

The resident identified repairs needed to the kitchen cupboards and cupboard doors during viewing of the property. He said he was told these repairs would be completed “immediately”. The landlord said in an internal email on 5 October 2022 that repairs to the kitchen were required post let as identified during the void works. It had not by that time raised these which was a failing.
The landlord delayed in raising repairs for the kitchen until 21 November 2022. However, the resident had made a right to buy application, and after this was rejected, a right to acquire application. It was the landlord’s policy to not carry out non-structural or non-emergency repairs while these applications were live. After these applications had been refused it inspected the kitchen and agreed it needed to be replaced. It correctly asked for and approved the property to be added to the kitchen replacement planned works programme for 2023 which was solution focused. It informed him within its stage 1 response.
When the resident escalated his complaint, he asked why the kitchen had not been replaced before the property was let, which was a reasonable question. The landlord failed to answer this in its stage 2 response although admitted it had identified repairs were needed before letting. It then failed to install the new kitchen until January 2024 almost one and a half years after the resident’s tenancy started. This delay was caused by it cancelling the works in September 2023 as there was a live right to buy application. This was not correct as the resident’s application had been rejected in 2022 as he did not qualify.
Under its relet policy the landlord aims for a high level of satisfaction and to minimise the disruption of major work, although says it may install a new kitchen after a property is let. The landlord has told this Service that a new kitchen was needed before the start of the tenancy but has not provided a good reason for why it did not install one before letting the property. If it wanted to follow its policy and provide a high level of satisfaction it would have done this. Instead, the resident had to continue to report repairs, chase these, and then chase the new kitchen installation once this was approved. There was maladministration, which caused inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble to the resident. To reflect this an order has been made that the landlord pay £600 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of building waste having been left at the property

It is not disputed by the landlord that it left some type of building waste at the property following the void works, which was at some point put into one or multiple wheelie bins. Under its relet standard policy, it says it will remove rubbish before letting but it failed to do this. It said it needed to empty the bin and when the resident reported this it correctly arranged for a collection which was solution focused.
It is not clear what happened during the appointment to empty the bin. The resident told the landlord that it did not do this, and it claimed there was no bin for it to empty. When the resident continued to raise the issue as part of his stage 1 complaint, it responded that the bin had been emptied without checking which was a failing. This caused further frustration for the resident as evidenced in his request to escalate.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord apologised that the waste had not been collected. It also admitted it had identified this issue during the void process. However, rather than inspecting or arranging a new collection, it referred the resident to the council. This was an illogical solution, as the resident had already told it the council had refused to empty the bin due to its contents. It also said it was not its responsibility which was clearly incorrect under its relet standard policy.
There was maladministration. The landlord failed to follow its policy and failed to resolve the issue within a reasonable time or at all. While it recognised its initial failing, and apologised, it was not fair in its actions, and it did not put things right. To reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble cause, an order has been made that it pay £100 compensation to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The resident made his stage 1 complaint on 14 December 2022 and the landlord acknowledged this the following day in line with its policy timeframe. On 3 January 2023 it spoke to him and wrote to him to say his complaint was on hold. Under its policy, and paragraph 5.1 of the Code, it should have asked for an extension of not more than 10 working days or agreed a date with him. It did not do this which was a failing. Landlords cannot put complaints on hold for an indeterminate period as this would frustrate the complaints process.
It provided its stage 1 response after 16 working days, in breach of its policy and the Code. It acknowledged escalation the same day it was requested which was positive. It requested an extension of time on the date its stage 2 response was due, but then provided its response the following day, which was policy and Code compliant.
Overall, there was service failure due to the landlord’s mishandling of its stage 1 response. This caused delay and inconvenience to the resident, due to the extra time and uncertainty within its communication. To reflect this an order has been made that the landlord pay £50 compensation, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Repairs needed to the outhouse window.
2. Repairs needed to the kitchen.
3. Building waste having been left at the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water meaning he could not move in.

Reasons

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the outhouse window as it failed to complete these before letting the property. It delayed in carrying out the works until after the end of its complaints process in breach of its repairs policy.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen as it failed to complete these before letting the property. It delayed in raising these, and after agreeing to install a new kitchen, incorrectly cancelled this causing further delays.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of building waste left at the property as it failed to remove this before letting. Once reported by the resident it failed to remove it. Within its complaint response it incorrectly said it was not its responsibility and directed the resident to the council.
There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling as it put the stage 1 complaint on hold rather than asking for an extension of time with a date for response. This breached its policy, the Code, and left the resident uncertain of when he would receive his response.
There was no maladministration as the landlord responded to reports of no heating and hot water promptly. There is no evidence the resident was without these services for any period of time and so its decision not to offer a rent refund was reasonable.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology, from a manager or senior member of its staff, for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £1,050 made up of:
  1. £300 (inclusive of its offer at stage 2) for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling repairs to the outhouse window.
  2. £600 for the inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling repairs to the kitchen.
  3. £100 for the inconvenience, time and trouble cause by its failings in handling removal of the building waste.
  4. £50 for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failing.
3. Amend its template stage 1 complaint response letter paragraph regarding escalating the complaint. It is to remove “If any new information or facts come to light” and replace this with “You can request a review of this outcome if you wish to”. This is to comply with paragraph 6.10 of the 2024 Complaint Handling Code (paragraph 5.9 of the Code in use at the time).
4. Amend its compensation acceptance form, and include within its template complaint response letter, that acceptance of any offer of compensation does not prevent the resident from bringing their complaint to this Service.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, under paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its relet standard policy and lettings policy and provide a copy of its report to this Service. This review is to include, but not be limited to:
1. How it decides and what criteria it uses to determine whether a kitchen or bathroom should be replaced when a property is void.
2. What types of repairs it believes it is acceptable to complete after letting and why.
3. Considering whether it should carry out a pre and post void works survey, with photographs, note any snagging and when it will complete any further repairs before letting.
4. Raising any repairs needed following viewing and sign-up at the property with the new resident, to ensure that these are booked in with appointment dates.