Reading Borough Council (202305676)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305676

Reading Borough Council

30 July 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. A mutual exchange and concerns regarding the condition of the property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident moved to the 3-bed house with her 2 children after completing a mutual exchange from another landlord. The secure tenancy commenced on 6 February 2023. The landlord confirmed the resident, her son, and daughter have several health conditions.
Prior to the mutual exchange, the resident inspected the property twice, once with the landlord present. The landlord’s internal records show it advised the resident of work needed to the roof and associated damp but confirmed no date had been set. It recommended she did not to move until the work was completed, but said the resident wanted to move straight away. After the move, the resident said she was not aware of the work required. The resident signed a form to confirm she accepted the property in its present condition and any repairs, damage or neglect by the previous resident would not be rectified by the landlord.
The landlord completed several visits to the property before and during the complaint investigation. While repairs were raised and some completed, the resident requested more and asked the landlord to complete them. These included repairs to all internal doors, holes in the floor and walls, damaged kitchen units/worktop and a full mould wash and decoration of the property. The resident asked to be moved due to the property condition/suitability – the landlord said it could look to facilitate a move to one of its own properties, but the resident wanted to move back to her previous location to be closer to her support network.
The resident liaised with her MP who contacted the landlord. Although there is evidence of the landlord contacting the councillor and MP, the resident said she did not receive a response to her complaint and contacted this Service for assistance. We contacted the landlord on 1 June 2023 to confirm the resident had approached us and asked it to respond to her by 8 June 2023. The landlord said it had responded to councillor and MP enquiries, but a complaint had not been received from the resident. On advice from this Service, the landlord raised a stage 1 complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 30 June 2023 in which it upheld the complaint. It confirmed the property was viewed and accepted as seen by the resident and it was only made aware of the adaptations needed after the move (it was waiting for the outcome of an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment). It confirmed it had contacted her previous landlord who had said they could not help with a returned managed move. The offer of taking the case to its management transfer panel was declined by the resident. The landlord set out the repairs that had been agreed and advised some had been raised previously but not completed due to access issues. It confirmed it would only apply a mould wash to the affected areas and would not decorate the property; £100 vouchers were given which could be used for decorating.
The resident escalated her complaint on 9 July 2023. She said none of the legal checks were carried out by the landlord and the property was unsuitable. She added that the landlord had agreed to work but then changed its mind (mould wash and décor). The resident said she felt unsafe, and the landlord had taken too long to complete the safety repairs following a number of attempted break-ins. She asked for all the walls to be mould washed and the property painted white, so it was in a better condition for her to swap with someone else.
The resident moved to a new property with a different landlord on 18 August 2023. With the move pending, the stage 2 complaint was put on hold as the landlord said the priority was supporting the move and getting the repairs done. The final complaint response was provided on 29 September 2023. The landlord confirmed it was not involved in sourcing the move but there were concerns with incomplete paperwork and, as such, the move should not have gone ahead. It said it was satisfied that the key issues (roof/garden/damp) had been brought to the resident’s attention, who made the decision to move knowing about the repairs. It agreed that some of the repairs should have been identified during the landlord’s inspection and resolved prior to the move. The landlord concluded that the property was suitable to occupy as the adaptation requests had not been provided at the time, and appropriate support had been offered with a move to alternative accommodation. The complaint was partially upheld.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has referred to the impact the issues have had on the health of her and her children. While we do not doubt this, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. As such, the report will not make any judgement or compensation order for the impact on the health of the resident or her family. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter, she should seek legal advice as this is not a process the Ombudsman can be involved in. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused.

Mutual exchange and associated concerns with the condition of the property

The resident viewed the property twice prior to the mutual exchange, once accompanied by the landlord. The landlord did inspect the property as per its standard operating procedure (SOP); however, the procedure states the inspection should be done by a property inspector, who can on occasion be accompanied by a neighbourhood officer if there is a breach of tenancy suspected. There is no evidence of a property inspector visiting the property as the inspection form was completed and signed by the neighbourhood officer.
The landlord’s inspection did not identify any major concerns and confirmed only minor repairs to be completed by the outgoing resident. While it is acknowledged that the landlord did inspect the property, it did not follow the guidance of the SOP. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this raises concern as to whether the officer who completed the inspection had the technical knowledge to highlight and address all the necessary repairs. It is however noted that the landlord has recommended more in-depth inspections as part of the mutual exchange process.
Furthermore, the SOP states that the property inspector should re–inspect the property to ensure it is satisfied that any work carried out is to an acceptable standard and that any defects are remedied before agreeing an exchange. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord revisited the property to sign off the repairs required by the outgoing resident – the Ombudsman finds this unreasonable and not in line with the SOP.
The landlord’s internal records confirmed the resident was told about the work required to the roof and associated damp. Due to the disruption and inconvenience caused by the repairs, it was reasonable of the landlord to recommend waiting until the work was completed before moving, however it is noted the resident wanted to move straight away. The evidence provided shows the resident later disputed the fact that she knew about the work to the roof. While this is noted, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to arbitrate between the parties but make an assessment based on the evidence provided.
On 6 February 2023, the resident signed the paperwork to confirm she accepted the property as seen, and that any repairs, neglect, or damage caused by the previous resident would not be carried out by the landlord. The landlord confirmed it would complete the gas and electric safety checks. Although it became apparent that the resident could not read or write, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord knew this in advance of the exchange, or that it was raised as an issue during the inspection – it is therefore difficult to say the landlord acted unreasonably and did not provide additional support when it was not aware of the situation.
Shortly after the move, the resident gave the landlord a list of repairs she believed the landlord was responsible for. She said a lot of the damage had been covered when she viewed the property. Quoting the Fit for Habitation Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act, she stated the landlord was in breach of its obligations. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord responded appropriately by visiting the property and agreeing to some repairs (safety repairs to the garden, a mould wash to affected areas and repairs to radiators). There is no evidence to suggest the landlord explained the difference between the repairs it was legally obliged to do, and those that were the resident’s responsibility. While not a service failure, it would have been beneficial to explain this to the resident as it would have provided clarity on the responsibilities of each party and demonstrated the landlord was acting in line with its obligations.
While the repairs were raised in a timely manner, the resident told the landlord she wanted to move back to her previous landlord. She said the property was in a poor condition and did not meet the requirements of the family (it needed adaptations for her daughter). Although the resident had accepted the property without the adaptations, and knew it was potentially unsuitable, when she asked the landlord to provide a letter to support a move back, it co-operated and provided the letter in an appropriate timeframe. This was a reasonable response from the landlord as it demonstrated an understanding and willingness to support the resident in her wish to return to her previous location. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, although the landlord was limited in what it could do in moving the resident back to her previous location, it provided evidence of contact with other landlords, local authorities, and organisations to aid a move. The landlord’s actions were reasonable and it appropriately set clear expectations with the resident.
After the resident engaged with her councillor and MP, the landlord confirmed the inspection process for a mutual exchange property. However, although it confirmed it was for the incoming resident to thoroughly inspect the property before moving, it did not refer to the property inspection that should be completed by the landlord, as per its SOP. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable as it put full ownership on the incoming resident but there was a SOP that had not been followed in this case. It said the resident should have raised the repairs during her inspection prior to the move, however it was at this point that the landlord was told the resident was unable to read or write. While this is noted, the Ombudsman does not find a failing with the landlord as the Ombudsman would have expected the resident’s own landlord to provide this information ahead of the mutual exchange.
While providing support with the move, the landlord was also attempting to complete the repairs. Some were delayed due to access issues, late cancellations by the resident, or appointments being stopped midway through due to the other commitments of the resident. The Ombudsman find the efforts of the landlord reasonable and appropriate.
When the resident asked for the whole property to have a mould wash and be painted white, the landlord decided it would not do this. It explained the tests completed did not indicate any sign of damp but agreed to treat the affected areas. It also advised that decoration was the resident’s responsibility. The resident was notably unhappy with the landlord’s response; however, the Ombudsman finds the response reasonable, particularly given it also used its discretion to make an offer of £100 vouchers towards the decorations.
When it became apparent that the resident was pursuing a move to another property, the landlord put some of the repairs on hold. This was reasonable as the resident had told the landlord she was spending a lot of time looking after her dad who was poorly and was not staying at the property much. This would have made access difficult, but also, the landlord said the outstanding repairs would not have made the property uninhabitable.
Security concerns were raised by the resident after she was told of the history of the previous resident. She said she felt targeted and reported several attempted break-ins to the police. The landlord responded appropriately by arranging urgent security repairs to the front and back doors that had not been reported previously.
In early August 2023, the resident was nominated for a new property with a different landlord. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s act of paying the £1,462.80 removal costs for the resident reasonable and resolution focused. The resident handed the keys back in on 17 August 2023.
In its final complaint response, the landlord agreed the move should not have gone ahead due to incomplete paperwork. It confirmed it had followed its SOP by completing its own inspection of the property, but acknowledged more repairs should have been identified during the inspection. It agreed there had been some delays with the repairs and highlighted that some remained outstanding despite them being raised. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord completed a thorough investigation into the case and highlighted several recommendations as a result. These included updating the website, and SOP, providing training, improved record keeping, more in-depth investigation prior to the approval, and a review process to ensure all the necessary paperwork is completed in full prior to approval.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the mutual exchange and associated repairs. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord failed to identify that it did not follow its SOP in respect of the inspections carried out. While the landlord did acknowledge its own service failures and areas of improvement, it did not recognise these by way of redress to the resident. The landlord agreed and acknowledged the move should not have gone ahead, but in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it did not fully consider the impact this had on the resident. In line the remedies guidance of this Service, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to address its failings by offering the resident compensation. Further information can be found in the orders section of this report.

The associated complaint

The landlord received a councillor enquiry on 27 February 2023, concerning the mutual exchange process, the property condition, and its suitability for the resident’s family. The landlord logged the enquiry via its MP and Councillor enquiry process and engaged with the councillor via email on 8 March 2023 and on 16 March 2023 via telephone. There is also evidence of contact directly between the MP and landlord in April 2023. While the Ombudsman finds this an appropriate approach to make, it may have confused the resident who believed her concerns had been raised as a complaint.
The resident contacted this Service on 12 May 2023 and said she had been misled into signing documents. She said she could not read or write, and the form had not been explained to her. She said she did not feel supported and wanted to move back. The resident was advised to submit a complaint to the landlord however she said she had done this but had not received a response. This Service contacted the landlord to advise of the contact received. The landlord said it had not received a complaint from the resident but had been responding to councillor and MP enquiries.
The landlord provided the stage 1 complaint response on 30 June 2023, ahead of the allocated timescale. While it apologised for the delay in its response, the Ombudsman believes it would have been appropriate to explain the process it had followed when responding to the councillor and MP enquiries. In doing this, it would have shown the resident it had responded to the concerns raised in a timely manner and had not ignored them.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord missed an opportunity to provide the resident with clarity around the mutual exchange process and in turn, its involvement. Although not a service failure, if this information had been provided at this early stage, it may have given the resident a clearer understanding of the landlords obligations and responsibilities when a mutual exchange occurs. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this shortcoming led the resident believing the landlord was responsible for all the repairs needed.
The landlord confirmed its knowledge in relation to the property suitability and pending OT report. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord offered support by requesting the OT report and by contacting the resident’s previous landlord, albeit without success. The landlord set the resident’s expectations by advising she could still be waiting a long time for a property that met her needs, but the Ombudsman finds the landlord’s offer to take the case to its management transfer panel reasonable.
In terms of the repairs, the landlord confirmed the work that was to be completed and the appointment dates, including those that had been changed to suit the resident’s availability. As mentioned previously, the landlord missed the opportunity to set clear guidelines and expectations regarding landlord and resident responsibilities. Nevertheless, it was reasonable of the landlord to confirm its previous attempts for completing some of the repairs as it showed it was trying to resolve matters for the resident.
Upon receipt of the escalation request on 9 July 2023, the landlord sent the acknowledgement the next day and confirmed the response due date. Although there is evidence to suggest the resident was not happy with the timescale to receive the final response, the landlord responded appropriately, and the timescales were in line with its policy.
During the investigation, the landlord inspected the property and confirmed what the resident wanted as a resolution (a move). It advised the investigation was ongoing, but said it seemed more appropriate to support her with a move and the repairs rather than responding to the complaint. It asked if she wanted to put a hold on the complaint until the move was secured but did advise that if she wanted to escalate the complaint to this Service, putting the complaint on hold would delay that process.
While the landlord may have believed this was a reasonable suggestion to make, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this did not comply with section 6.17 of the Code (in place at the time of the complaint). This states a complaint response must be provided when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required are completed. Putting the complaint on hold did not benefit either party and prolonged the process unnecessarily. The resident told the landlord if the move went ahead, she would withdraw the complaint and it was put on hold on 7 August 2023. The investigation re-commenced on 11 September 2023 after the resident confirmed she wanted to pursue the complaint.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 29 September 2023. Excluding the ‘on hold’ time, the landlord’s response took 34 working days, slightly over the 30-working day timescale (59 working days in total). Although the delay would not have had any serious detriment on the resident due to her moving to another property, the landlord did not apologise or explain the reasons for it. It provided the resident with the full investigation report that included every issue raised by the resident, and its response. The Ombudsman finds this appropriate as it demonstrated a very thorough investigation which was honest and transparent in its findings, the service failures identified, and the recommendations highlighted.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. Its responses were inconsistent in meeting the requirements of its policy and the Code and it did not always provide enough clarity on the matters raised. Although the landlord demonstrated a fair investigation and learned from its outcomes, it did not demonstrate how it would put things right by offering any financial redress to the resident – the Ombudsman finds this unreasonable. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion, that considering the findings of this report, compensation should be offered to the resident. Further information can be found in the orders section of this report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a mutual exchange and concerns regarding the condition of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Write a letter of apology for the failures identified within the report.
2. Pay the resident £350 compensation. This is made up of:
  1. £250 for the failures identified with the mutual exchange and the concerns with the property;
  2. £100 for the failures identified in the complaint handling.
3. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed.
The landlord has confirmed a list of recommendations that should be made following the investigation. The landlord should provide this Service with a timeframe as to when it expects to implement the improvements identified.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence to confirm it has complied with the orders made within the specified timeframe.