Gravesham Borough Council (202322422)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322422

Gravesham Borough Council

23 June 2025

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 pre-void inspection and the associated cost incurred by the resident.
2. the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a one-bedroom flat. He has a secure tenancy that began on 26 October 2010. At the time of the complaint, he lived at the property with his wife and child. The landlord is also a local council. For the purposes of this report, we have referred to the housing function of the local council as ‘the landlord’ and its wider functions as those of ‘the council’.
The resident was shortlisted for a new build property during December 2022 through the council’s waiting list. The council asked the landlord to carry out a “pre-void inspection” (the inspection) on all the shortlisted applicants. The purpose of the inspection was to identify any issues with the condition of the resident’s current property to ensure they are addressed before a formal offer is made.
The landlord completed its inspection on 7 December 2022. It found that the property was generally in good condition. It advised the resident that he would need to remove the vinyl flooring in the kitchen and bathroom before moving out to avoid recharges.
During January, February, and March 2023 the resident contacted his housing officer and the council to ask for an update. He explained that the inspecting officer said the new build property was not ready. The council responded and said his housing officer would call him. The resident then contacted the inspecting officer to ask for an update, as people were starting to move into the newly built properties. They responded and said they did not confirm the allocation of a new property, but that a member of the council’s allocations team would be able to advise further.
The resident continued to contact the landlord and the council. He explained that when the inspection was booked in, he was told he would be moved into the new build development. The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 March 2023 and explained that housing officers could not make formal offers of accommodation. It explained all shortlisted properties had an inspection so the council could “work on” the shortlist.
On 7 June 2023 the resident made a complaint. He said:
1. he had been told by his housing officer that he would be moving to a new build property, but was later told the allocation was not guaranteed.
2. he tried to get an update on the progress about when he would be moving between December 2022 and March 2023, but the landlord did not respond. He provided text messages to the landlord of his attempts to contact it.
3. he had carried out unnecessary work to his home, which incurred unnecessary cost, including decorating and a deposit for a plasterer.
4. he wanted the landlord to reverse the decision not to offer him the new build property.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 July 2023. It said:
1. it had written to the resident in March 2023 to explain the purpose of pre-void inspection. It had also reviewed its correspondence to date and felt it had been fair and transparent about the allocations process.
2. it explained that every bid for the property was assessed in line with its allocations policy.
3. it noted there was confusion between the terminology used for the inspection because of staff using both “pre-void inspection” and “pre-termination visit”. But it had reviewed the language in its allocations policy and would encourage the team to use the correct term to avoid any further confusion.
4. it had spoken with relevant staff members and could not “prove nor disprove” that an offer of accommodation had been guaranteed. But it was not within the remit of the landlord to offer accommodation. It would remind staff members of this, so it did not raise any expectations in future.
5. if the property needed decorating, the resident would have to do it because his tenancy agreement obligated him to keep it in good condition. It said this would be the case if the resident was successful in any of his bids on the council’s housing list.
6. it accepted there were delays in updating him following the inspection, and it apologised for this.
7. the resident could look to mutually exchange, and it provided a link for home swapper.
The resident escalated his complaint. But it is unclear when he did this. He said:
1. he was surprised after providing copies of text messages that the landlord had said it could not prove or disprove its promise of the new build property.
2. he had not been told about the “allocations process” during his communications with the landlord.
3. it was “hurtful” that the landlord would not acknowledge the promise it made.
4. he did not feel the investigating officer had been fair or transparent during the investigation. He added the landlord ought to have recorded his communications with his housing officer.
5. he had to pay a labourer for replastering the living room. He had lost a deposit for doing the entire flat because he had cancelled the work. He arranged the plastering work as he believed he was moving.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 September 2023. It said:
1. it had reviewed its stage 1 response and had no reason to suspect it was “anything less than transparent” but it was sorry to read the resident felt differently.
2. it was a requirement of the resident’s tenancy to keep and maintain his home in a suitable state of “repair and decoration”. Therefore, he was responsible for the costs he incurred to complete this work.
3. given the resident had incurred costs to bring the home to suitable condition, this indicated it was not being kept in a condition that conformed with the terms of the tenancy agreement. And may have resulted in a transfer request being ultimately refused.
4. it was “very sorry” if he was promised a transfer to a new build home. But the landlord was not empowered to make such promises. This “appeared to have led to a false sense of [his] family being guaranteed a transfer.” But the property was no longer available.
5. it could not validate whether he was promised a move. But it accepted that the resident incurred expenses he would not ordinarily have done because he felt he was promised a move.
6. it also recognised the resident had not had the best experience dealing with staff. As an apology, it offered £150 towards the costs incurred in bringing the property to an acceptable standard. But it was not responsible for the redecoration costs the resident instructed.
7. it would also remind officers that promises should not be made when they do not have the authority to do so.
The resident referred his complaint to us on 27 November 2023 because:
1. he said he had relied on the landlord’s advice that he was being offered a new build property. As a result, he incurred unnecessary costs for redecorating the flat following the inspection.
2. he was dissatisfied with the timeliness of responses from the landlord’s staff members.
3. he wanted the council to reassess his priority on the waiting list because he had been overcrowded for a long time.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Part of the resident’s complaint was about the way the council had handled the shortlisting and allocation of the new build property. He also explained to us that he wanted the council to reassess his priority on the council housing list because of this.
We recognise the council has functions it must carry out that are wholly separate from its landlord function. The council is responsible for the maintenance of its social housing waiting list. This includes assessing applications for social housing, shortlisting, and allocating properties to applicants and making formal offers for accommodation. These are carried out under its legal duties under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996.
We do not have the jurisdiction to investigate these matters, because these issues relate to a wider executive functions of the council. And are separate from the council’s landlord function. The resident can refer his concerns about the way the council handled his housing register application to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This is the most appropriate body to investigate this type of complaint.
For clarity, our investigation has considered how the landlord handled the resident’s concerns about the inspection. And whether this was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. We will not assess the council’s actions as part of our investigation. However, they are mentioned in this report for context.
The resident explained to us that the outstanding issues were:
1. he had relied on communications from the landlord immediately before and during the inspection that he was going to be offered a new property.
2. he carried out unnecessary remedial work identified at the inspection to ensure he was able to move property.

The inspection and the associated cost incurred by the resident

The resident said that during a call with the landlord to arrange the inspection, he was told that he was being offered a new build property.
There is no evidence provided by the landlord about this call. In the absence of this, we were unable to determine whether a promise had been made to the resident about a formal offer of accommodation.
Nonetheless, even if the landlord had made such a promise it could not offer the resident the property. This is because only the council could make a formal offer of accommodation through its waiting list, not the landlord. Social housing may only be offered in accordance with the council’s allocations policy. This is a legal obligation on the council. Therefore, the outcome for the resident would have been the same because it was beyond the landlord’s control who the property was allocated to.
The landlord was, however, responsible for its communications with the resident. Therefore, we would have expected that any advice it gave, including the telephone call it had to arrange the inspection, would have been recorded and provided to us. That it did not provide this meant we could not be satisfied it had acted reasonably in the circumstances to explain its position at the earliest opportunity. And to manage the resident’s expectations around the process and the purpose of the inspection. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience as well as time and trouble chasing an update on a property he had not been allocated.
The resident explained that, during the inspection, he was told by the landlord that he would be offered a new build property.
We have reviewed the notes from the inspection. There is no evidence that this information was given to the resident. However, we understand that the mere undertaking of such an inspection may have set an expectation for the resident that he may be moving. There is no evidence that the landlord explained the purpose of the inspection to the resident at the time, nor that his expectations were managed about the inspection being a prerequisite for all applicants that were shortlisted for the property.
We recognise the landlord was not solely responsible for explaining the council’s allocation process. However, given it was tasked with carrying out the inspection, it would have been reasonable for it to have managed the resident’s expectations about the process. That it did not caused the resident time and trouble pursuing updates. As well as causing frustration and a sense of missed opportunity because he thought that he would be moving to a new property. This was particularly distressing to the resident because he felt he was overcrowded in a one-bedroom flat with a dependent child. And that he would be moving. This would have been compounded by poor communication around the roles and responsibilities of the landlord and the council.
The resident evidenced that between January and March 2023 he had contacted the landlord for an update about the new build property. He provided text messages he had sent to his housing officer during this time to chase them for an update. There is no evidence the landlord responded. Had it done so, it would have been able to understand the resident’s position and managed his expectations around the inspection and its role in the allocations process. That it did not was a failure to meaningfully engage with the resident about his concerns at the earliest opportunity. This caused the resident avoidable distress as well as time and trouble contacting both the landlord and the council about the matter.
However, we recognise the landlord took steps to try to put this right. It appropriately recognised in its stage 2 response that it had delayed in responding to the resident. It also apologised for this and said it recognised its communications had been poor and this had impacted him.
The resident explained that he carried out work on his property following the inspection. He said he thought he needed to carry out the work to be able to move to the new build property. This included decoration works, throwing away items to “lighten the move” and a lost deposit for cancelled plastering works. The resident did not provide an approximate figure for the cost of these items.
The evidence shows that the inspection recommended that the resident remove the vinyl flooring in the kitchen and bathroom. There is no evidence that the landlord advised the resident to carry out any decoration works, including plastering, or to discard any of his possessions. As such, it is unclear why the resident felt these works or actions were required.
The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it was not responsible for reimbursing decoration works, as the resident’s tenancy agreement obligated him to keep the property in good order. However, it accepted the resident incurred expense because he felt he was promised a move to another property. It apologised for this and offered a contribution towards the resident’s costs of £150.
There is no evidence to demonstrate that the costs the resident said he incurred as a result of recommendations from the landlord’s inspection. Therefore, the landlord used its discretion to contribute towards his costs when it offered him £150. There was no obligation on the landlord to do so, and we consider this was a positive action for the landlord to take in the circumstances to try to repair the landlord and tenant relationship.

Conclusion

Overall, the landlord failed to maintain adequate records to allow it to review the communications it had with the resident during the process. Additionally, it failed to manage his expectations around the inspection and its, and the council’s, roles and responsibilities at the earliest opportunity. This caused the resident avoidable stress and a feeling of lost opportunity. As well as time and trouble chasing updates.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
The landlord recognised in its stage 2 response that it could not “validate either way whether [the resident] were or weren’t promised a move”. It also recognised there was a period of delay in responding to the resident. It apologised for this. And said it would remind relevant staff members that “promises should not be made where they do not have the authority to do so”.
We consider the landlord appropriately recognised that there was evidence of poor record keeping, which hindered its ability to understand what advice had been given during its communications with the resident. As such, it did the right thing when it empathised and apologised for the resident’s experience. It was also positive that it provided feedback to relevant staff members.
However, we do not consider that its offer of redress was proportionate to address all the failures found during our investigation. For this reason, we found service failure in the landlord’s handling. A key contributing factor to this complaint was the landlord’s poor record keeping concerning its communications with the resident. The landlord failed to advise what it would do to ensure a more accurate audit trail and/or clear a record of resident and staff interactions as kept. Therefore, we were not satisfied that it took appropriate steps to address this.
The landlord must undertake a case review of its record keeping in relation to this complaint to understand why it failed to record all the discussions it had with the resident. And what measures it will put in place to resolve this. In addition, we consider it would have been appropriate to compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience of its failure to manage the resident’s expectations at the earliest opportunity, which contributed to the impact on the resident. To put things right, it must pay him £150 to recognise the impact of its failures on him. This is in line with our ‘Remedies Guidance’ for this level of finding.

Complaint handling

Our Complaint Handling Code 2022 (‘the former Code’) was in force at the time of the complaint. This states that landlords must respond to complaints as follows:
1. issue a stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of logging the complaint. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
2. issue a stage 2 within 20 working days of receiving the escalation request. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
3. a full record must be kept of the complaint, any review, and the outcomes at each stage. This must include the original complaint, and the date received, all correspondence with the resident, correspondence with other parties and any reports or surveys prepared.
4. landlords should keep residents regularly updated about the progress of the investigation even where there is no new substantive information to provide.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 (7 June 2023) within 25 working days of the resident’s complaint (12 July 2023). The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 June 2023, 7 working days after it was due to respond, to explain there was a delay and it would respond by 13 July 2023.
While notifying the resident of its delay was in line with its obligations under the Code, we note that it did not do this until after the time had passed for its stage 1 response to have been issued. That it did not was a failure to provide timely updates to the resident on the progress of his complaint. This caused the resident uncertainty over when his complaint would be responded to. The landlord ought to have contacted the resident promptly to explain any delays and provide a new timescale for a response. That it did not was a failure to follow its obligations under the former Code to provide timely updates to the resident.
It is unclear how long it took the landlord to respond to the resident’s escalation request because the evidence it provided did not contain a date when this was made. That it did not record when the resident made his escalation request was a failure to keep a full record of the complaint. This was a departure from the former Code.
We recognise the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 11 August 2023. It also sent the resident a holding letter on 8 September 2023, explaining that it required more time to answer the complaint. It said the complaint would be issued by 20 September 2023.
Explaining its delay and providing a new timeframe for its response was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s obligations in the former Code. However, it is unclear because of its failure to record the escalation date, whether this was done in a timely manner. As such, we could not be satisfied it acted reasonably in the circumstances when it notified the resident of its delay.

Conclusion

Overall, the landlord failed to demonstrate it acted reasonably when it communicated its delays at stage and stage 2 of its complaint procedure. This was in part due to poor record keeping. For this reason, we found service failure.
The landlord did not identify this in its complaint investigation, therefore, it did not try to put things right. To put things right the landlord must pay the resident £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience of its failure to provide timely updates about his complaint. We also consider it appropriate for the landlord to apologise for its handling of the complaint. And for it to demonstrate that it had conducted complaint handling training in the last 12 months that addresses the process of engaging with residents in the event of delays. This is in line with our ‘Remedies Guidance’ for this level of failing.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the pre-void inspection.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failures we have set out in this report.
2. pay the resident £200 compensation broken down as:
  1. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience of its failures concerning its handling of the substantive issue.
  2. £50 in recognition of the inconvenience of its complaint handling failures.
3. evidence it had conducted complaint handling training in the last 12 months which addressed how to respond appropriately in the event of a delay. Alternatively, it must arrange for this training to be completed.
4. undertake a case review of its record keeping for this complaint to understand why it failed to record all the discussions it had with the resident. And what measures it will put in place to resolve this and associated timescales. It must write to us with the details of its review.