London Borough of Sutton (202204166)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204166

Sutton Housing Partnership

24 April 2024 (amended at review)

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the property’s condition on letting.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant and his joint tenancy began on 4 March 2022. The property is a 3 bedroom semi-detached house. The landlord is a local authority. An Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO) runs the property on its behalf. The family comprises the resident, his partner, 2 children and their assistance dog. The children have Autism and the eldest has an acute vision impairment. The tenancy agreement shows the weekly rent is £137.19.
The landlord’s lettings standards document details the minimum standards residents can expect from their new home. It confirms the landlord’s properties will be: clean, tidy and free of rubbish (including the roof space), free from damp and mould growth, and free from trip hazards. Further, internal doors and handles will be in good working order. Windows will be secure and easily operable.
The landlord’s void standards document is more detailed. It shows, before letting, all properties should be clean, secure and in a reasonable state of general repair/decoration. Further, the heating/hot water system should be checked and left in good working order with all necessary repairs carried out; all walls should be washed and wiped with detergent; any residual mould or damp staining should be removed with anti-fungal solution; “final exit” doors should comply with fire safety regulations and boundary fences are to be left sound and complete.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its relevant complaints policy, effective August 2020, shows it aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 21 working days. Complaints should be acknowledged within 2 working days at both stages.

Summary of events

The landlord’s void screen shot shows the property became void on 14 September 2021. Separate records confirm the landlord began a programme of “standard void works” the same day. A gas safety record shows the boiler was tested 2 days later. It said the heating system was in “fair” condition and the boiler was safe to use.
The Ombudsman has seen a “void specification document” relating to the property. It appears to date from around the same time. It included some general standards and a schedule of various works. There was no reference to a utility room, fencing or a leak. It said the loft was cleared by the landlord’s own operatives. No equivalent documents, from later in the void period, were seen. It was therefore unclear if the landlord identified any additional repairs.
Further works took place over the following months. The Ombudsman has seen an asbestos survey and electrical certificate. The survey confirmed no asbestos was found. The electrical certificate shows the property received a “full lighting and power rewire”, which included a replacement consumer unit. There was limited evidence to show the landlord’s progress against the void specification.
A handover form shows the void works were completed on 21 February 2022. It also shows no snagging works were identified at this point. An invoice, from early March 2022, suggests an energy performance certificate (EPC) was issued around the same time. No information was seen to show any cleaning works were completed prior to the tenancy.
The parties’ subsequent correspondence shows the resident raised 22 repair issues on 7 March 2022. This prompted the landlord to inspect the property the following day. The resident subsequently said some of these repairs were completed before the family moved in on 13 March 2022.
On 20 March 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint about the property’s condition. His email included his previous list of repairs. It referenced numerous issues including a lack of cleaning, rubbish left in the garden, damaged plaster, missing/damaged window and door fittings, trip and other hazards, and a failure to make good decorations. Broadly, the resident said the property had serious issues that should have been resolved while it was void. His main points were:
1. A heating engineer recently attended because the downstairs radiators were not working. Since they recommended replacing the “entire system”, the family would now experience avoidable inconvenience.
2. The mains water supply was leaking after the water meter. Concrete to the front of the property was visibly wet and there were damp patches on a nearby wall. The resident previously highlighted damp patches to the landlord.
3. The resident’s calculations, based on meter readings, showed around 1,200 litres of water were leaking every 24 hours. Again, the leak should have been repaired while the property was void.
4. The property’s “unsafe” fence was in disrepair. The family’s assistance dog had twice entered the neighbouring garden. It was unacceptable the fence was left in this condition. The garden should be secure for the family’s children and their dog.
5. Other issues needed attention: a “nicotine-stained” vent above the stairs was insecure and served no purpose, a broken seal in the rear door frame needed to be replaced and the landlord failed to attend a scheduled gutter cleaning appointment on 15 March 2022.
The parties exchanged emails between 21 and 22 March 2022. The exchange began when the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. The resident replied the water supplier had confirmed the leak was coming from the property. His correspondence included meter readings from August 2021. He said they confirmed the property was leaking while it was void.
The landlord issued an informal stage 1 response on 30 March 2022. This was in line with its relevant timescale. The response included the landlord’s replies to the resident’s previous list of issues. The complaint was partially upheld on the basis there were mistakes in the landlord’s void process. For example, the landlord accepted it failed to recognise that additional works were needed to make good. Though the landlord apologised, no compensation was offered. The response failed to address the leak. The main points were:
1. The property received a standard clean during the void period. Its windows were cleaned and the grass was cut. Dust settling and grass growth were expected while the property was void.
2. Around 14 issues from the resident’s list were now resolved. For example, operatives were recalled to the plastering which was now rectified, old trunking with sharp edges had been resolved, rubble was cleared from the driveway, and concrete slabs were removed from the garden.
3. The property did not need a new kitchen. The landlord had adjusted the kitchen drawers in line with the resident’s report. Similarly, the landlord would not install a 6ft fence in the garden. The resident should contact Occupational Health to ensure the fencing met the family’s needs.
4. The landlord would recall its contractor following a failed repair to a concrete doorstep. Since they were new issues, the resident should send pictures of the stained vent and broken seal. The landlord was sorry it failed to attend the guttering repair, a new appointment had been raised and feedback was given to the operative.
5. The property’s gas was capped during the void period. Recent heating issues were only identified after the family moved in. The landlord could see the resident was liaising with its contractors about the repairs.
6. The landlord’s repairs manager would work with the resident to resolve the outstanding issues. They had given the resident their mobile number. If he remained dissatisfied, the resident should notify the landlord within 28 days.
The resident escalated his complaint on the same day. He said the landlord’s response failed to address the leak. Further, repairing it would cause more disruption for the family. His email included a list of 12 issues and a number of images. Broadly, it disputed various aspects of the landlord’s response, including issues the landlord said were resolved. His main points were:
1. The resident disputed the property had been cleaned. The landlord should evidence its window cleaning works because the windows were dirty. The grass may have been cut but it was still overgrown when the family moved in. Not all of the agreed concrete fixtures had been removed.
2. Though operatives had attended, the fencing was not done. The operatives deemed the existing fence was beyond repair and a replacement was needed. A new picket fence was neither safe or acceptable given the family’s circumstances. A side gate post had not been fixed.
3. Kitchen drawer units were either poorly installed or faulty. In any case, they failed to meet the manufacturer’s specification. They should be repaired or replaced. The landlord’s replacement gas safety certificate still included an incorrect date.
Within days, the resident chased the landlord about the leak. He said the issue had been raised numerous times. He felt the landlord was indifferent to the wasted water and potential damage to the property. The parties’ subsequent correspondence shows the landlord’s repairs supervisor and local manager attended the property on 7 April 2022. Further, the resident’s list of 12 issues was discussed. The Ombudsman has not seen minutes from the meeting.
On 13 April 2022 the landlord issued a follow-up response at stage 1. Its informal email included the landlord’s summary of the recent meeting. The landlord said its contractor would return to complete any outstanding snagging works. Further, once the plaster was dry, it would redecorate the property’s utility room as a gesture of goodwill. The landlord reiterated its commitment to work with the resident. The main points were:
1. Given its location, the leak was not detected when the property was void. A repair was now scheduled for 13 April 2022. The landlord noted the boiler could have been replaced before the property was let.
2. The new boiler was now installed. The landlord’s voids supervisor was seeking to improve the landlord’s processes following the resident’s experience. The new boiler installation resolved issues with previous gas safety certificates.
3. The parties agreed a like-for-like replacement of the existing fence. This was in line with the landlord’s approach to repairs. Alternatively, residents could request their own improvements. A repair order was now raised but there was a backlog following a recent storm.
Later that day, the resident replied he was still unhappy. He requested copies of the landlord’s void paperwork and meter readings. He said, having referred to the information on its website, it was clear the landlord failed to comply with its void standards. He quoted these standards in detail and referenced Right to Repair regulations. This reference implied he was due statutory compensation for delays. The resident’s main points were:
1. The leak repair was cancelled with less than 24 hours’ notice. The landlord had not apologised or rescheduled the repair. Damp was evident from images taken on 5 March 2022. Further, because escaping water frequently ran over their drive, a neighbour had reported the leak several times.
2. The leak “would easily be classed as a category one hazard under the housing health and safety rating system” (HHSRS). Since the landlord was responsible for the property’s structure, its offer to redecorate the utility room on a goodwill basis was insulting.
3. The resident was awaiting the dates of any cleaning and grass cutting works. These works should have been completed around 2 weeks before the tenancy began. A further piece of concrete needed to be removed.
4. The landlord previously told neighbours it would replace the fence. This confirmed it knew the fence was beyond repair before the family moved in. It should have been repaired prior to their arrival in line with the landlord’s void standards.
5. The resident was awaiting details of the landlord’s fence repair timescale. He felt the landlord wanted to replace less than half of the fencing that was beyond repair. He was also unhappy it “refused” to inspect the fence during its recent visit.
6. The landlord’s repairs to the property’s kitchen drawers only improved matters slightly. The landlord was due to attend the broken door seal and stained vent imminently.
7. The resident quoted multiple sections of the landlord’s void standards and responded with his own notes. For example, he noted the property should have been “clean, secure and in a reasonable state of general repair and decoration” on letting. Each note disputed an aspect of the landlord’s required standards.
8. Following his previous escalation, the resident was still unhappy with the landlord’s response. However, the landlord failed to clarify the complaint stage or outline any next steps. The resident wanted to communicate by email going forwards.
In its subsequent correspondence, on 29 April 2022, the landlord said the leak was repaired on 20 April 2022. The timeline suggests this was around 21 working days after the resident reported the issue. In his December 2023 update to the Ombudsman, the resident agreed the repair was completed around this time.
The parties exchanged emails between 21 and 22 April 2022. The landlord said it felt the property was habitable but there were some “snags” to be resolved. Further, the resident had raised new issues and changed his mind over agreed outcomes. It wanted to continue working through the resident’s list of items. However, the resident could request a stage 2 investigation and the landlord would consider a decant if he felt the property was unsafe.
The resident replied his recent (void standards) notes superseded his previous list. He reiterated his information and escalation requests, along with his preference for email contact. He said email contact was necessary because the landlord referred to actions that, contrary to its response, were not agreed during the recent visit. The landlord subsequently issued a stage 2 acknowledgement.
The resident updated the landlord over several emails on 26 April 2022. He said operatives attending that day were unable to repair the rear door step because it was missing from their worksheet. He then reported finding further “unsafe” debris in the garden. Accompanying images (undated) showed glass shards and a drill bit. Later, he reported front and rear door repairs were outstanding even though he had taken time off to facilitate the works. With reference to a fifth visit to repair the door, he questioned the competence of the landlord’s operatives.
The resident chased the rear door repairs several times over the next few days. The following events then occurred on 29 April 2022:
1. The resident reiterated a previous request for a specialist contractor to complete the door works. He said “we are now demanding (the works are) done by a specialist that knows what they are doing…”. He also said, following a previous repair attempt, the family had to call the landlord out of hours because they were unable to close and lock the door.
2. The landlord issued another informal follow up response. It included a table with the landlord’s response to 11 repairs, along with referral rights to the Ombudsman. The landlord said it was taking adequate steps to resolve matters and many agreed actions were already complete. Further, the following items were outstanding: concrete screed to doorway, utility room painting and erect fencing. The landlord said the resident should allow it to complete these works. In addition, he had exhausted its complaints process at stage 1
3. The resident asked the landlord to confirm it would not respond to his standards concerns and questioned why it was “withholding” its void report. He said snagging works were also outstanding and reiterated the landlord would not be allowed to carry out further door works. He also said the landlord’s technicians were “glorified handymen” and an operative recently used foul language in front of his daughter. He responded to the landlord’s 11 points and confirmed he would approach the Ombudsman.
On 9 May 2022 the resident told the landlord a repair to the rear door’s internal step had failed again. This was because replacement timber had bent and was catching the bottom of the door. He also reported a rising damp issue on the side of the house. On the same day, the landlord responded to the resident’s 29 April 2022 email. Its informal response referred to the resident’s concerns as “outstanding queries”. The main points were:
1. The landlord addressed the leak when it identified the problem. It was sorry for any inconvenience caused. The boiler was replaced due to age and not its working condition. The landlord had no repair requests logged for faulty radiators. A “turn on and test” completed when the family moved in found no defects.
2. The landlord was unable to confirm the dates of any: general cleaning, window cleaning or grass cutting works. Since it contained information about its internal processes, the landlord would not share its “void surveyor specification document”.
3. Fencing works were specified on 12 April 2022. The landlord did not need to check the fence again during the recent meeting. With regards to the utility room, the landlord would contact the resident around 16 May 2022. If the plaster was dry, redecorating works could begin.
4. The landlord was sorry for any bad language used by its operatives. The operatives involved were reminded about the landlord’s expectations. With the resident’s agreement, the landlord’s surveyor could inspect the failed door repair and the reported damp.
5. The landlord thanked the resident for removing a third concrete “platform” from the garden. It said it was only aware of 2 concrete slabs. The landlord was unable to explain the presence of debris the resident found in the garden. The garden was visually inspected during the void period. Any identified items would have been removed.
The resident replied over a number of emails the same day. He said he wanted a copy of the landlord’s void survey and a full response to his void standard concerns from 13 April 2022. In addition to restating previous issues, his initial email raised a number of new points. A follow up email contained several images of outstanding snagging works. Broadly, they showed undecorated areas left after old switches, and other fittings, were removed. The below is a summary of the resident’s new information:
1. In relation to the fence, the resident disputed the landlord’s assertion an inspection took place on 12 April 2022. The landlord should provide its fence repair specifications and a completion timescale.
2. There were several other date errors in the landlord’s latest response. For example, plastering works to the utility room were completed on 19 April 2022, not the following day. Similarly, there was a 2 day error in the landlord’s door step repair timeline.
3. The resident contacted the landlord’s heating contractor a day after the turn on and test works. This was to report the heating was not working downstairs. The contractor’s operative attended and signposted a boiler fault.
4. It subsequently turned out, after the boiler was replaced, that the downstairs radiator valves had been shut at both ends. The resident felt this must have happened when the radiators were removed to facilitate plastering works.
5. The resident agreed to a surveyor’s inspection on 12 May 2022. Since rising damp affected a “whole side” of the property, it was unrelated to the landlord’s leak repair.
6. The landlord incorrectly marked a front door threshold repair complete. The resident stated the landlord had only taken a photo of the threshold.
On 18 May 2022 the landlord responded to a local MP acting on the resident’s behalf. It acknowledged the resident’s images and said snagging works would be completed when the utility room was decorated. It noted the room was dry so works could be arranged. It also said, following the surveyor’s visit, there was no clear evidence of damp. However, a “precautionary” damp seal would be added to an external wall near the utility room. Further, trickle vents throughout the property should be kept open to prevent condensation issues.
The landlord said, to date, the resident had refused works to a rear door threshold. However, he should allow its in house operatives to resolve the matter. Further, the landlord’s own images showed the front door threshold was completed on 26 April 2022. If the resident could explain the problem the landlord would recall its operatives if necessary. In total, 10 meters of fencing would be replaced in line with the landlord’s previous advice. A repair date would be provided as soon as possible. Since its position had been clarified, the landlord would only respond to new queries going forward.
The resident emailed the landlord the same day. He said he would not allow it a sixth attempt to rectify the rear door. Further, despite his email on 26 April 2022, the front door threshold was still loose in line with his original report. The resident also said he was previously advised 8 meters of fencing would be replaced. Regardless, since they showed the existing fence was obstructing a neighbouring pathway, his own images confirmed around 18 meters needed to be replaced. The resident’s email included several images and a reiteration of his previous void standard concerns.
On 30 May 2022 the resident asked the landlord to raise a new complaint. He again referred to the landlord’s void standards and asked the landlord to respond in full. For example, he said the property was not safe and secure on letting because a broken bathroom window mechanism meant it could not be closed or locked. He said this should have been repaired in 1 working day and, overall, the property was not in good repair when the family arrived.
On 1 June 2022 the landlord replied there were no new issues in the resident’s complaint. It said his questions had already been answered and the resident did not need to see its void survey. The landlord’s email shows decorating and snagging works were ongoing. Further, a threshold repair had been scheduled. The landlord said its repairs supervisor would inspect the property on 6 June 2022 to discuss any final points. It suggested, before the resident approached the Ombudsman, the parties’ could agree to independent mediation.
Later that day, the resident replied he raised a new complaint to obtain a full explanation of the property’s condition on letting. He said several operatives recently attended the property without prior appointments. Further, similar issues had occurred previously. He also said the back door was now worse following this visit. He highlighted a lack of repairs, communication and works completed to a “poor standard”. Nevertheless, he accepted the landlord’s proposal for an independent third party review. His email included images of the property’s utility room.
The information seen suggests the images were taken on 8 March 2022. The resident said damp was clearly visible in the bottom corner of one image. Further, this confirmed that, contrary to the landlord’s void standards, the property was not free from damp on letting. The images seen by the Ombudsman appear to support the resident’s assertion. They suggest water marks were visible along a wall above the skirting board.
The parties’ correspondence confirms the following events occurred between 6 and 21 June 2022:
1. The landlord said, following the resident’s confirmation he had already approached the Ombudsman, there was “little value” in reviewing his complaint internally. As a result, it would await the Ombudsman’s contact. However, with the resident’s agreement, it would appoint a surveyor as his main point of contact until matters were resolved. It also said the surveyor was currently working to schedule repairs.
2. The resident replied his new complaint should be handled separately. He highlighted the landlord’s applicable response timescale. Though he agreed with its internal review comments, the resident observed the landlord had previously offered an independent third party review. He felt the landlord had given misleading information to prevent him approaching the Ombudsman.
3. The next day, the landlord said it was happy to raise a new complaint. It asked the resident for a bullet point list of his new complaint points. It said it would acknowledge the complaint when it received the list. The resident replied he was seeking a full explanation as to why the property was let contrary to the landlord’s void standards. He asserted that, given his preferred outcome, a new complaint was necessary.
4. The information seen suggests post and concreting works were completed on 8 June 2022.
5. On 13 June 2022 the resident asked the landlord to delay its upcoming decorating works for around 1 week. His subsequent correspondence shows the landlord overlooked this request and attended the property the following day.
6. On 16 June 2022 the landlord followed up its previous request for a list of the resident’s new complaint issues. The resident replied his concerns were a new complaint rather than additional points. His email reiterated his previous void standard concerns. The parties’ also exchanged emails about repair appointments on the same day.
7. Four days later, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s new complaint. In response, the resident observed 14 days had passed since it was raised. Further, he had not provided any new information to prompt the landlord’s acknowledgement. This implied the landlord should have acted on his previous information (about the landlord’s void standards).
8. On 21 June 2022, the landlord replied it would respond to the points raised in the resident’s 16 June 2022 email within 10 working days. Its email wording indicates the landlord felt this email contained points that were not addressed as part of its previous correspondence.
The landlord responded to the resident’s new complaint on 24 June 2022. This was around 17 working days after it was raised. Its informal stage 1 response addressed the resident’s general void standards concerns and his specific example about the broken bathroom window mechanism. The complaint was partially upheld. In line with its previous response, the landlord apologised for the resident’s experience. Though his general concerns were upheld, the landlord’s rationale was unclear. Again, no compensation was offered. The key points were:
1. A void supervisor, who understood the landlord’s required standards, was responsible for completing final checks prior to letting. Following sign-up, the landlord would investigate and resolve any reported issues as soon as possible (this aspect of the landlord’s rationale was unclear).
2. Regarding the property, a detailed plan had been developed to address various issues in consultation with the resident. The landlord had visited the property on a number of occasions to address the resident’s concerns.
3. The landlord was unable to reach a decision in relation to the bathroom window. It would happily investigate further if the resident was able to provide a related email from 4 March 2022 The landlord’s records showed it completed the repair after 7 working days (the Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the above referenced email and its relevance to the landlord’s investigation was unclear).
4. The landlord was sorry for the resident’s experience. It would continue to work through the outstanding repair issues until matters were resolved. The landlord’s surveyor had advised all outstanding repair requests were now scheduled for completion.
The resident replied the same day. He said, since the complaint was upheld, the landlord should confirm when it would rectify a list of issues from the complaint. The list included: loft to be cleared of previous tenant’s items, nicotine stained window and door frames to be cleaned or renewed, front and rear doors to be renewed to ensure fire safety compliance, draught strips to be installed to external door frames and drive condition to be rectified. Around the same time, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to clarify the complaint stage.
Based on the landlord’s correspondence from 28 June 2022, an occupational therapist (OT) recommended a number of adaptations to the property around this time. The information seen suggests they included installing a fence panel, shower and external lighting.
The parties’ correspondence shows the surveyor attended the property between 5 and 13 July 2022. During the landlord’s internal correspondence on 14 July 2022, the surveyor reported windows and doors throughout the property needed cleaning. This was on the basis they were “filthy” around the inner frames. They also said, based on the residue left, the property’s previous occupant appeared to be a smoker.
An update to the resident on 27 July 2022, shows the landlord was awaiting the OT’s approval for fencing works. In a subsequent update, days later, the landlord said its surveyor would visit the property with an operative who would clear the loft. The resident agreed the landlord’s proposed appointment. His reply highlighted quality issues with recent works to replace an internal door. His accompanying images broadly reflected a lack of care and attention in repairs that had been conducted. For example, they showed the door was fitted out of plumb and timber had been split.
In mid-August 2022, the landlord confirmed works to the rear door step, front door handle and internal door were scheduled for 1 September 2022. The resident contacted the landlord on that date. He asked to raise a formal complaint about an operative’s attitude. His email indicates he was unhappy with the landlord’s repairs. The next day, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 by 16 September 2022.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on the above date. This was around 4 months after the resident’s initial escalation request. The response contained 2 tables detailing the resident’s initial and subsequent repair issues. It also referred to numerous works later agreed by the surveyor. The complaint was partially upheld. The landlord awarded the resident £165 in compensation comprising: £40 loss of amenity for 1 week without downstairs heating, £75 for time, effort and inconvenience and £50 for “stress”. The key points were:
1. Though it was safe and fit for habitation when the tenancy began, the property failed to meet the landlord’s lettings standard. This prompted the resident to chase repairs and required him to allow continued access to the property. The landlord recognised the situation was inconvenient. Though the extent of the required repairs was unacceptable, the repairs were progressed within reasonable timescales.
2. Completed additional works included: painting and decorating to 2 bedrooms and the utility room, overhauled and cleaned multiple windows, installed screed to rear doorstep, chimney repairs and waste removal from the loft. The OT had installed new fences to the property’s right and rear boundaries. The new fencing was taller and did not constitute a like-for-like replacement.
3. The following aspect’s of the resident’s complaint were not upheld: request for void survey/records, request for taller fencing, and request for operatives not to visit the property. The landlord was not obliged to share its internal documents. Similarly, it was only obliged to repair the existing fence. The resident’s refusal to allow certain operatives to attend the property caused delays.
4. Overall, the resident’s experience did not reflect the landlord’s expected service levels. Feedback was provided to its voids team. Several new contractors recently started working with the landlord. The landlord would track and measure their performance accordingly. Given the resident’s experience, compensation was also appropriate.
On the same day, the resident confirmed he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. He said, because the landlord failed to make it safe, the fencing remained in a dangerous condition until the OT’s works in early August 2022. Since he asked it to arrange a specialist, the resident denied he prevented the landlord completing works. He said a simple repair to the rear door ultimately took 6 months and over 10 visits to complete. Further, his recent request that an operative should not attend the property was unrelated to the complaint. In addition, an internal door repair was still outstanding.
In June 2023 the Housing Quality Network (HQN) issued an independent review (the resident provided a copy to the Ombudsman in December 2023). It considered the landlord’s response to his complaints in detail. It noted the resident felt he had not received an adequate apology given what happened. Further, he was seeking around £2,000 in compensation. The report made multiple recommendations to improve the landlord’s performance. Some key points were:
1. The HQN noted a lack of customer focus, a patronising/sarcastic tone in some of the landlord’s correspondence and frequent typographical errors (one of which was “embarrassing”). It also noted, based on the landlord’s explanations, there appeared to be no harm in the landlord sharing its void survey with the resident.
2. The landlord should review its complaints policy to ensure it complied with the Ombudsman’s code of practice. This was broadly because the landlord’s policy contained outdated materials and lacked clarity in key aspects.
3. The landlord should review its complaints procedure and guidance to ensure equality, diversity and vulnerability issues were routinely considered during its complaint investigations. This was on the basis it was unclear whether it took the children’s vulnerabilities into account (the report noted the resident did not raise these issues in “any significant detail”).
4. The landlord should carry out and publish a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s current complaint handling code (the Code). This should be a priority since the landlord’s assessment was against a previous version of the Code, which was superseded in April 2022.
5. The landlord should review its void processes to ensure it was capable of identifying and resolving poor quality works from contractors, along with any heating issues.
6. The landlord should also: use template documents to formalise its complaint responses, provide internal guidance on effective complaint responses, allow complaints to be escalated without a clear reason not to, ensure it had a process for changing policies/processes internally, implement a quality assurance process and provide complaints training on several key topics including letter writing.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 4 December 2023. He said there was damp and mould in the utility room and his son’s bedroom when the family moved in. Further, his son was later diagnosed with asthma. The resident was concerned this diagnosis related to the mould. He referenced other issues including inoperable windows, hazardous trunking and missed appointments. He said he took time off work to facilitate repairs. His other key points were:
1. The landlord had resolved the repair issues referenced in the resident’s void complaint. Other issues, including damp, were still ongoing with the landlord.
2. The landlord’s compensation was inadequate. For example, its calculation failed to recognise the landlord took 4 weeks to replace the boiler.
3. The resident was pursuing a disrepair claim through a solicitor. The claim generally covered more recent issues. No court proceedings had been issued.
4. The landlord had images taken prior to its void works. This confirmed it had a void survey. The landlord had restricted the resident’s contact.
The resident subsequently provided the property’s repair history between 9 March 2022 and 20 November 2023. He said he obtained it through a freedom of information request. The history broadly supports the resident’s previous comments about the number of repairs to the rear door. It suggests the outstanding internal door repair was completed by 17 February 2023. The evidence suggest this date marked the end of the relevant repair timeline. The first reference to mould in the history was from December 2022.
In a further update, prompted by an information request from the Ombudsman, the resident provided additional information about the HQN report. His screen shot confirmed the landlord ultimately suggested the parties could approach the HQN with a view to improving their relations. Further, it agreed to share the HQN’s report with the resident. The resident told us the landlord subsequently failed to implement any of the report’s recommendations.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is frustrating for the resident and his family. The timeline shows he has multiple concerns about the landlord’s actions. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience and loss of amenity. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. In other words, we are unable to determine whether the landlord was responsible for any illness or loss of earnings.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the property’s condition on letting

The timeline confirms there were multiple repair issues from the outset of the tenancy. Many of these issues should have been covered by the landlord’s lettings and void standards. The landlord promptly accepted there were errors with its voids process. It eventually offered the resident £165 in compensation. Nevertheless, no information was seen to show the property was deemed unsafe or uninhabitable by a suitably qualified professional. From the information seen, there was also little evidence of mould growth.
For example, aside from referencing a relevant void standard around cleaning with detergent, there were no specific references to mould in the resident’s complaints. Nor was mould apparent in the images seen by the Ombudsman. We also checked the relevant period in the landlord’s repair history. Though the resident recently told us about ongoing damp, no information was seen to show this issue was linked to his above referenced complaints. If he has not already done so, the resident can raise a new complaint with the landlord.
The timeline points to other mitigating factors in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaints. For example, no information was seen to show the property was entirely without heating for any significant period during the timeline. It was also noted that, from the resident’s emails on 9 May 2022, it was eventually confirmed there was no fault with the old heating system. Similarly, though the evidence points to a substantial leak in the utility room, no information was seen to indicate the family were unable to use the room for a significant period.
Further, the timeline shows that, regardless of its condition, the property’s existing fence did not meet the family’s needs. Similarly, as the HQN report noted, it was difficult to gauge the overall impact of the various repair issues to the family. This is because the resident’s complaints largely centred on the landlord’s failure to comply with its policies and procedures. Nevertheless, from the evidence, it is clear the resident’s substantive complaint was well-founded. Further, the impact can be inferred from the information available.
For example, the timeline suggests numerous repair and cleaning works, related to the resident’s complaints, were ongoing around the property between 13 March (when the family moved in) and 16 September 2022. Given the extent and duration of these issues, it is reasonable to conclude the family were unable to fully enjoy the property and they had limited respite from the situation. It is clear the family also experienced avoidable inconvenience. For example, they removed debris from the garden and facilitated multiple repeat repair visits.
Since no information was seen to show the landlord completed any cleaning works during the void period, it is reasonable to conclude the resident may have also spend additional time cleaning. It was noted, in its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted he spent time chasing repairs. Overall, the above shows the landlord’s compensation award was disproportionate given what went wrong. The Ombudsman will therefore order increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen.
The timeline indicates the landlord may have reached a disproportionate figure by incorrectly including the goodwill gesture (to decorate the utility room) in its calculation. In line with the resident’s observation, it was obliged to repair the leak and any resulting damage to the property. This included making good any decoration. Given the above, the information seen suggests the landlord’s goodwill offer was an inappropriate form of redress given the circumstances. The landlord’s approach to compensation will be considered further in the complaint handling section.
The timeline also points to an delay in completing the final repair to an internal door. The resident referenced this repair in his reply to the landlord’s stage 2 response on 16 September 2022. The repair history suggests it was marked complete around 17 February 2022. In general, the Ombudsman considers 1 month a reasonable timescale to complete routine repairs. On that basis, the evidence points to an unreasonable delay of around 5 months. No information was seen to indicate the landlord addressed this delay.
The Ombudsman’s relevant compensation order will consist of 3 elements. The first will be broadly equivalent to a 10% rent reduction over the above identified 6 month period to reflect the family’s loss of amenity. The second will reflect any distress or inconvenience caused during this period. The third will address any distress and inconvenience caused by the delayed internal door repair. The timeline suggests this repair marked the point when all the repairs referenced in the resident’s complaints were completed.
It was noted, in April 2022, the resident raised the prospect of statutory compensation under the Right to Repair scheme. It may help to explain that this scheme only covers repairs which cost less than £250. The Ombudsman has not seen any of the landlord’s repair costings. Still, the scheme is unlikely to apply to the boiler replacement. Given the above, the Ombudsman’s calculation did not utilise the scheme’s methodology. Nevertheless, it was consistent with our own guidance on remedies.
Overall, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point. The evidence shows the landlord’s failure to follow its lettings and void standards had a significant impact on the resident and his family. Though it eventually awarded compensation, the landlord’s redress was not sufficient to fairly put things right. The evidence suggests the landlord’s offer to redecorate the utility room as a goodwill gesture was inappropriate.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline points to significant issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. Many of these issues were described in the comprehensive HQN report, which included numerous valuable recommendations. The landlord’s offer to obtain an independent review from the HQN was welcome. For clarity, its report reflects the evidence seen by the Ombudsman. We will therefore seek to develop, rather than repeat, the report’s findings. Our aim is to put things right for the resident and extract learnings to improve the landlord’s overall performance.
The landlord displayed an inappropriate tendency towards informal complaint handling during the timeline. For example, on 13 April 2022 the resident noted the landlord’s follow up response failed to clarify the complaint stage or outline any next steps. In other words, no escalation or Ombudsman referral rights were provided. It is reasonable to conclude these omissions made it more difficult for the resident to progress his complaint. Further, they likely increased his overall frustration.
There was also an inappropriate lack of engagement. For example, despite his email on 22 March 2022, the landlord’s initial stage 1 response overlooked the resident’s concerns about the leak. Subsequently, around mid-April 2022, it failed to engage with the resident’s objection to its proposed goodwill gesture, and his related comments around the right to repair scheme. These comments were a clear request for compensation. Without engaging with them, the landlord was unlikely to resolve matters to the resident’s satisfaction.
Soon afterwards, the landlord failed to engage with the resident’s specific void standards concerns. On 22 April 2022 the resident confirmed his recent notes superseded his previous list of issues. Though they still related to the property’s condition on letting, the notes raised new issues because they referred to the landlord’s void standards. On that basis, the landlord should have expanded the scope of its existing complaint or, if it wanted to subject the resident’s new concerns to both stages of its complaints process, raised a new complaint.
Instead, it signposted the resident to the Ombudsman on the basis its complaints process was exhausted at stage 1 (this approach is typically unsuitable for complex complaints). Again, this was clearly frustrating for the resident, who repeatedly raised the same issues until the landlord eventually opened a new complaint. The timeline points to an avoidable delay of around 10 weeks based on the period between 13 April and 20 June 2022. These dates reflect when the issues were raised and when the landlord opened its new complaint.
The evidence points to further delays later in the timeline. For example, it should have been reasonably clear from his reply, on 24 June 2022, that the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s second stage 1 response. Nevertheless, if the landlord was unsure it could have proactively asked the resident if his email amounted to an escalation request. There was no indication it did this. Ultimately, the Ombudsman’s intervention was required to prompt a stage 2 response. The above shows the landlord’s inappropriate complaint handling prompted an unnecessary intervention.
The timeline suggests that, having adjusted for the landlord’s relevant response timescale, the second delay was around 8 weeks. This calculation was based on the period between 25 July and 16 September 2022. Again, the evidence suggests this delay was avoidable and it resulted in additional inconvenience for the resident. Overall, the above points to combined complaint handling delays of around 4 months in total. Given the above identified delays and failures, the landlord’s compensation award should have included a separate complaint handling aspect.
However, the wording of its stage 2 response shows the landlord failed to consider its own complaint handling during its investigation. Since it failed to recognise the above issues, the landlord made no attempt to put them right. This was inappropriate. The landlord should routinely consider its own complaint handling during every investigation to ensure any procedural issues are identified and redressed accordingly. There were further issues with the landlord’s approach to compensation.
For example, the landlord appeared reluctant to award compensation even though its partially upheld stage 1 responses acknowledged additional visits to the property were necessary. The landlord should recognise the connection between unnecessary visits and avoidable inconvenience. Further, the landlord made little attempt to consider the proportionality of its compensation offer. For example, its stage 2 response did not attempt to identify the number of unnecessary visits. Nor did it attempt to explain how the landlord calculated its loss of amenity award.
Similarly, little attempt was made to identify other delays the landlord was responsible for. Overall, the landlord’s offer of £165 in compensation appeared arbitrary and disproportionate. Given the landlord’s lack of analysis and acknowledgement of the failures identified with its complaint handling, it is reasonable to conclude it was unlikely to resolve matters through its internal complaints procedure. The landlord should ensure it is capable of awarding proportionate compensation to fairly resolve complaints.
In addition to the issues identified in the HQN report, the landlord’s tendency towards informal complaint handling and lack of engagement was inappropriate. It overlooked delays and failures that impacted the resident because it failed to consider its own complaint handling. It appeared reluctant to award compensation and made little attempt to consider proportionality. Given the above, there was severe maladministration in respect of this complaint point.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the property’s condition on letting;
2. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s failure to follow its lettings and void standards had a significant impact on the resident and his family. Though it eventually awarded compensation, the landlord’s redress was not sufficient to fairly put things right. The evidence suggests the landlord’s offer to redecorate the utility room as a goodwill gesture was inappropriate.
In addition to the issues identified in the HQN report, the landlord’s tendency towards informal complaint handling and lack of engagement was inappropriate. It overlooked delays and failures that impacted the resident because it failed to consider its own complaint handling. It appeared reluctant to award compensation and made little attempt to consider proportionality.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders a relevant member of the landlord’s executive team to apologise to the resident within 4 weeks. The apology can be written or verbal but the landlord must share a copy with the Ombudsman. It should recognise the landlord’s failure to comply with its void standards, the HQN report’s key findings around tone and vulnerabilities, the landlord’s tendency towards informal complaint handling and its lack of engagement, along with its failure to award proportionate redress.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,175 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £330 for any loss of enjoyment the resident was caused by the landlord’s failure to follow its lettings and void standards.
2. £520 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused during the above identified period of around 6 months.
3. £75 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the delayed internal door repair.
4. £250 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
5. The above calculation supersedes the landlord’s previous offer of £165 at stage 2. The information seen suggests the resident never received this award.
The landlord’s executive team to review the void standards and complaint handling issues highlighted in this report. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its progress against the recommendations in the HQN report. Though it mostly focused on complaint handling, this report included suggestions relevant to the landlord’s void process. The review should also include a record keeping aspect around the landlord’s ability to track/monitor works (such as cleaning) undertaken when a property is void.
The landlord, if it has not done already, to complete the works to the trunking, plaster, and making good following the relocation of light fittings.
The landlord to paint the replacement door, the same colour as the door that it replaced.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks.