Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Colchester City Council (202310994)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310994

Colchester City Council

24 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. The condition of the property when she moved in following a mutual exchange.
    2. Repairs required at the property once she had moved in.

Background

  1. The resident moved into the property which is owned by the landlord after a mutual exchange agreement on 27 February 2023. She had a secure tenancy.
  2. On 16 March 2023, the resident complained formally to the landlord about the state of the property when she moved in. She stated that she had to clear numerous bags of rubbish from the house and the loft. She said the landlord had not inspected it properly before the exchange.
  3. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 24 March 2023. It said it advised those intending to mutually exchange to thoroughly inspect the new property before signing the mutual exchange agreement. The resident had signed a checklist saying she had inspected the property. It had made it clear it would not inspect the loft.
  4. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaint process on 26 May 2023. In her escalation request, she added that the patio doors and windows at the property had no locks, the kitchen window had no handle, the radiators were unhygienic and dangerous as the previous tenant had allowed her pets to soil them and had dripped candlewax into them. She added that she had been waiting for a new kitchen and the shower was blocked with cat excrement. She believed the landlord had not inspected the property properly. She alleged its staff member had told her during the inspection that they could only remain in the property for 10 minutes because of the smell of cat urine. She had discovered several electrical faults when she moved in.
  5. In its stage 2 response, issued on 12 June 2023, the landlord repeated its findings from stage 1. It said it carried out a “sight only” inspection during site visits and it was down to those exchanging to ensure that the property met their requirements. It had already replaced the front and back doors as well as patio doors and refurbished the shower. It had ordered new hinges for the windows and would fit these within the next 2 weeks. It had approved the installation of a new kitchen and radiators and would replace these shortly.
  6. The resident was not satisfied with this response and brought her complaint to this Service. She said the landlord had told her it would give her a new kitchen but had done so. It had also failed to repair some doors and windows.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident raised various concerns with the landlord in 2023 which she did not raise in her complaints to the landlord. Among these were concerns about a rodent infestation at the property and a contractor treading glue into a carpet.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states, at paragraph 42.a that the Ombudsman may not normally consider complaints which, in our opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. For that reason, in this report, we will not look at the part of the complaint which deals with her concerns about rodents or the carpet.
  3. If she wishes to complain about this matter, the resident should raise these matters with the landlord in the first instance. If she remains dissatisfied with its handling of the matter, then she could refer it to this Service, where we would deal with it as a separate complaint with a new reference number.

Condition of the property when resident moved in

  1. A “mutual exchange” is an arrangement where social housing tenants who want to move can swap properties. In this case, the resident wanted to move away from her previous property for personal reasons. The other tenant wanted to move to the area where she lived. Landlords normally try to interfere in these arrangements as little as possible so as not to stand in the way of people wanting to move.
  2. For that reason, landlords will carry out “sight only” checks of the property and require residents to check them and agree that they are happy before rubber stamping the arrangement. Landlords have to check properties, but these checks are not expected to discover every problem. There is no failing by the landlord if a sight-only inspection fails to uncover problems which were not immediately obvious at the time.
  3. The landlord’s “mutual exchange leaflet” explains that tenants should thoroughly inspect properties before moving in. It said the landlord would inspect the property but would not inspect the loft. It also states that tenants will be responsible for cleaning and clearing rubbish once they move in.
  4. The landlord has provided a “mutual exchange checklist” dated 27 February 2023. It states, “officer has checked property as best as possible, [but] it is your responsibility as the incoming tenant to ensure you are satisfied to accept the property in its current condition”. The form states that it is the resident’s responsibility to clean the property. It is signed by the resident and she accepts that she visited the property and agreed to move in.
  5. The resident’s stage 1 complaint said that the outgoing tenant had left the property in poor condition. The resident said that there should have been another inspection closer to the handover period. However, the landlord was not responsible for the state that the previous tenant left the property in.
  6. The resident said that the housing officer told her that she had not been able to stay in the property for more than 10 minutes because of the smell of cat urine. There is no independent documentary evidence to support this claim and the officer has left the landlord’s employment. However, if the officer did tell the resident about the smell of cat urine and she carried on with the exchange, then she did so in the knowledge of the problem. She would also have been able to judge the severity of the problem during her own visit.
  7. Ultimately, the resident’s complaint is that the previous tenant left the property in a mess. This was not the responsibility of the landlord. It complied with its obligations in facilitating the mutual exchange.

Handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required once resident had moved in.

  1. Once the resident moved in, the landlord had the same responsibilities to her as it had to any other tenants. It had a duty under the tenancy agreement to carry out any repairs which were reported to it concerning the structure of the house, windows, plumbing and doors within a reasonable time.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will carry out emergency repairs within 24 hours. It will carry out urgent repairs within 3 days and routine repairs within 21 days. It will also carry out planned works within 120 days where possible. It also says that, where a resident requires adaptations because of disability, the landlord will instal them on request if they are minor. However, if the adaptations are major, it will require a referral from an occupational therapist (OT) before carrying them out.
  3. The resident reported that there were no locks on the downstairs windows on 1 March 2023 and that she was unable to unlock the front door from outside the next day. The landlord attended and carried out repairs on the doors within 24 hours. Unfortunately, there were some issues with the new locks, but the landlord attended and repaired them promptly. The landlord was timely and acted in accordance with its service standards.
  4. The resident reported problems with the locks in the conservatory and with the windows and doors in early March 2023. The resident was concerned about her safety because of threats from her estranged husband. Under the circumstances, the landlord should have dealt with these reports as a matter of urgency. The records show that they were still outstanding 2 months later. This was an unreasonable delay in dealing with her concerns. This Service, therefore, concludes that there was a failing in the landlord’s actions with respect to these delays.
  5. The resident reported problems with the shower on 8 March 2023. The landlord attended within 24 hours, in line with its policy. She reported various electrical faults in March 2023. On each occasion, the landlord attended and repaired faults within its service standard. She continued to report problems throughout early 2023. The landlord, on the evidence, dealt with them appropriately.
  6. The resident made many other reports of problems at the property. These must have been frustrating for her. However, the landlord responded to them within its service standard. This Service’s role is to investigate whether landlords respond appropriately to reports of concerns from their tenants. In this case, the landlord did so.
  7. The evidence shows that the kitchen of the property was old. The resident has said it was 26 years old. However, there is no evidence that it did not function at the time of the exchange. The Mutual Exchange Inspection Checklist says that all fitting and appliances, windows, doors and floors as well as radiators and worktops were checked and serviceable.
  8. Nonetheless, the landlord told the resident that it would replace the kitchen in the stage 2 response of 12 June 2023. It said that a contractor would contact the resident soon. The resident told this Service in late June 2023 that the landlord had said it would take 3 to 4 weeks to arrange. However, we have no evidence from the landlord corroborating these timelines.
  9. There were delays for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the resident had mobility problems and required adaptations to the kitchen. The landlord required an OT assessment to discover what adaptations she required. Secondly, she wanted to go abroad for medical treatment. Thirdly, she was frustrated with the landlord and refused to talk to officers in September 2023. Finally, she decided in summer 2023 that she wanted to move back to the area she came from and said she no longer wanted the new kitchen. She refused to allow contractors to enter the property. These factors were not the landlord’s responsibility.
  10. Nonetheless, the records show no communication between the landlord and the resident in connection to the replacement of the kitchen between June 2023 and September 2023. The landlord’s repairs handbook says it aims to provide a high-quality service. Poor communication is an example of poor service. The landlord’s service in this instance, therefore, fell below the standards it set itself. This delay was a failure on the landlord’s part. This Service has included an element in the compensation in recognition of this failure.
  11. The landlord’s remedies policy says that it will apologise and sometimes make payments “as a goodwill gesture” where appropriate. It does not set out what sums are appropriate. In the view of this Service, payments made in recognition of poor service should not be labelled as goodwill gestures. This is not what they are. They are payments made as compensation for a landlord’s failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the property when she moved in following a mutual exchange. 
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required at the property once she had moved in.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for its failure to repair locks on windows and doors sooner and for its poor communication in the summer of 2023.
    2. Pay the resident £150 in recognition of those failures.