From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Bernicia Group (202420134)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420134

Bernicia Group

12 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
    1. An unpleasant smell in the property.
    2. Having to move out of the property due to major works.
    3. The 2-week period given to move properties.
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 21 December 2020. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord had vulnerabilities recorded on its system for the resident and her household.
  2. On 29 August 2024, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. In summary she said:
    1. She had been forced to move out of her home to a different location due to the bad smell in her home which was thought to be linked to the drains. She felt that this was affecting her and her family’s health.
    2. She was unhappy that she had only been given 2 weeks to move. Her husband was vulnerable.
    3. She was unhappy that she had to purchase new flooring as she was unable to bring any with her to the new property. She had been offered £200 but this was not enough.
    4. She had raised the issue with the smell in September 2023 and it has taken nearly 12 months for a decision to be made to excavate the floor. During the 12-month period she was advised that it would be ok to decorate but now she has to move.
    5. She had struggled to pack up her home. The cost of paid help has caused financial hardship. She considered her landlord had not offered to help.
    6. She could not move into the new property without carpets as her grandson had special needs and severe allergies. He would not be able to cope unless the home was furnished to the correct standard.
    7. She wanted compensation for the suffering caused by her having to move from a property which was uninhabitable.
  3. On 10 September 2024, the landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said:
    1. Unfortunately decanting a property is sometimes the only possible solution when major works will be so intrusive that the home would be uninhabitable during the works.
    2. The resident had now informed it that a decant would cause stress on her disabled husband and grandchild. In response it had now offered a permanent priority transfer to any of its available properties.
    3. The 2-week period was not a fixed time. It explained that if the resident advised that she required more time it would have accommodated the request. The resident had informed it that she did not wish to remain in the property due to the smell and the impact on her health. It had reimbursed the resident 17 days rent to help during the moving period.
    4. It acknowledged that the investigation and the fact the resident had to move out would have been stressful. It had considered this in its offer of compensation.
    5. It accepted that the resident had recently laid new flooring and had been unable to take it to the new property. It had offered £200 in vouchers, but it had also considered further compensation in respect of this below.
    6. It offered £2,000 compensation to cover the cost of re-decoration and replacement flooring. This amount also included compensation for the stress caused during the investigation and having to move.
  4. On or around 19 September 2024 the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2. In summary she said:
    1. The property she had moved into was unsuitable and because she had to accept it, she had missed out on other properties in her preferred area.
    2. She felt she had been misled and pushed into making a hasty decision to accept the property.
    3. She was only given a few weeks to pack up her belongings. She had explained that she was on holiday for 4 days during that period. She was not given an extension on the removal date and could not afford to pay rent on both properties.
    4. She had a removal team but then she had to rely on family to assist who incurred high fuel costs as a result. She provided a breakdown of the costs she had incurred which amounted to £8,333.99 and it included the following:
      1. The costs of planting and restoration of the new garden.
      2. Painting and decorating in the new and old property.
      3. Curtains furniture and soft furnishings.
      4. Out or pocket expenses.
  5. On 17 October 2024, the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. In summary it said:
    1. It addressed the resident’s concerns about specific properties that the resident said she had missed out on. It explained that it had no foresight of what properties would become available in the future at the point in time the resident was offered her current property. It relies on terminations of which it had no foresight of.
    2. When the resident’s priority transfer request was authorised, available properties were assessed for that moment in time and the offer of her current property was made.
    3. It was sorry to hear that upon moving the resident had discovered that her new property did not meet her husband’s health needs. It appreciated that adaptations required varied based on a person’s individual need. It agreed that an occupational therapist would be best placed to assess those needs.
    4. It could offer financial assistance up to £500 for minor aids and adaptations. It asked the resident to advise if she wished to request this. It provided the relevant contact details if she wanted to request a comprehensive occupational therapist assessment.
    5. If the resident considered her current property did not meet her or her households needs, it would assess her situation. It could then establish if the resident was eligible under its allocation policy. It may then be able to support the resident to move internally or provide advice on how to access properties with other providers.
    6. It addressed the resident’s financial hardship concerns. It offered to refer her to its team who can advise on budgeting and help to make grant applications for household items.
    7. It upheld its findings in its stage 1 response. It said it was unable to offer any further compensation therefore the offer remains at £2,000. This offer is to cover some of the cost of redecorating, replacement flooring and for the stress experienced.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied. She considered that the compensation amount was not enough.

Assessment and findings

Policies & procedures.

  1. The landlord’s decant policy states that when a tenant is moved from their permanent home into alternative accommodation it is known as a decant. It defines decanting as when it needs tenants to move from their homes for the purpose of major repair. The move maybe permanent or temporary while the works are completed.
  2. The policy states it will make it clear to its tenants that usually it will only make one offer of accommodation that meets the needs of the household. It will also make it clear whether or not the decant is permanent or temporary. It would aim to provide suitable alternative accommodation for a permanent move and work with the tenant to meet their requirements and preferences. It also references its allocation policy for more details.
  3. It states it will cover all extra costs as a result of the decant. In addition, it would arrange for any reasonable additional costs associated with the decant to be covered. This may include removal and storage costs, reconnections and redirection of post and other reasonable costs associated with the decant.
  4. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of its properties. It will ensure installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation and heating are in working order. It has 2 repair categories. An emergency repair will be responded to within 24 hours. Standard repairs will be booked on the next available appointment that is agreed with the tenant.
  5. The landlord’s allocation policy uses a priority banding system. (A to E). A number of categories of housing need will be recognised. Each housing need will be assessed using a banding system designed to reflect the urgency of the situation and the impact of each factor on the applicant. Its highest priority band A states tenants will be eligible where moving to allow a temporary decant.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider compensation where a complaint is upheld. It would calculate the compensation based on the circumstances of each case. It will be paid at its discretion and will only be paid if the customer has been substantially inconvenienced or has incurred specific financial loss as a result of its action or inaction. The compensation policy also states that it will insure the properties it lets but it is the tenant’s responsibility to insure the contents of their own homes.
  7. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint procedure as set out in its complaint policy. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2.

Scope of the investigation

  1. It is recognised the situation was distressing and inconvenient for the resident and her family. This Service is also aware of the residents’ concerns about expenses she had incurred for new flooring and decorating prior to her move. It’s adverse impact on the family’s welfare is also acknowledged. 
  2. It may help to explain that, unlike a court, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages/costs. Nor can we evaluate medical evidence. On that basis, the resident’s concerns around expenses and any damage to her family’s health are beyond the scope of this assessment. 
  3. The Ombudsman can assess whether a landlord offered sufficient redress for the distress and inconvenience it caused.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about an unpleasant smell in the property.

  1. The resident first reported that there was a bad smell coming from under the kitchen unit on 1 March 2023. She said that she thought this was because the water was not draining away correctly. The landlord responded within 11 working days on 15 March 2023. This response time was reasonable and in accordance with its timeframes. During the visit it renewed all wastes from the bath and the sink.
  2. Reports were then made in June 2023. The landlord responded the next day. It cleared the kitchen sink block and jetted the drain. It also found the sewer to be blocked. It reported this to the water company to attend and clear. Its response times were reasonable, and it had taken action to try to resolve the issue. This was in accordance with its repairs policy.
  3. Further reports were made in October 2023. The landlord requested a camera survey by a specialist contractor. The records are not clear as to exactly when the survey was completed. The records indicate it was around the beginning of January 2024. It is unclear why there was a delay of 2 months for the survey. There is no evidence either to show whether it kept the resident informed of the delay. The landlord failed to offer any explanation for this within its complaint response.
  4. Works to replace the rest bend and drain line were also completed in January 2024. Further reports were made in February and March 2024. The landlord attended and cleared a blockage. As the pipe work had been replaced it requested an inspector attend. This was appropriate given that action it had taken to date had still not resolved the issue.
  5. The inspection was not however completed until almost 2 months later. in May 2024. Again, the landlord provides no explanation for its delay and there is no evidence to show that it kept the resident informed. From this visit it then concluded that a decant was necessary. This was not however agreed within its records until 15 July 2024. It is unclear why this took an additional 2 months to determine that a decant was appropriate. Again, there are no records showing that the resident was kept informed during this period.
  6. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as smells as it can be difficult to identify the cause of the issue at the outset and in some case different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. The Ombudsman cannot comment on what repairs would be appropriate and the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake.
  7. The landlord said the same within its stage 1 complaint response. However, it is evident that there were a few delays in this case which have not been explained by the landlord. The records also fail to show that the resident was kept informed during these periods. This is a failing in its handling of the matter.
  8. The landlord did acknowledge the resident’s expenses, and the distress and inconvenience caused because of the smell and then having to move. It provided decorating vouchers and a rent rebate which was in accordance with expenses incurred under its decant policy. It also offered to refer the resident for budgeting advice and assist with grant applications for household items.
  9. The landlord’s records show that it had visited the resident to discuss the decant in July 2024. During this meeting it explained some of the costs it would and would not cover so it had managed the resident’s expectations. It is unclear however why removal costs were not covered as the policy provides this cost as an example of costs it will consider.
  10. For clarity, this Service has recommended that the landlord write to the resident to set out why the removal costs have not been covered in this case. The landlord may also wish to consider whether any of the other costs claimed by the resident would be able to be claimed from its own insurers. It should discuss this with the resident and then set out its position to the resident in writing. If she is able to claim it should advise her how she can do this.
  11. The landlord offered £2,000 compensation to cover some of the cost of the redecoration, replacement flooring and the stress it caused. It does not break down how this amount had been calculated.
  12. The resident experienced stress and inconvenience for almost 18 months. However, the landlord had responded to the resident’s reports in a timely manner and had actively investigated to try to determine the cause. Most of the delays were because the issue was complex. The landlord had however contributed to the delays without any explanation on 2 occasions, which accounted for a period of approximately 4 months. This was a failing. It also failed to show how it had communicated with the resident during the period when it was investigating the smell.
  13. The landlord offered compensation of £2,000 that the Ombudsman considers was more than proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the delays and poor communication identified above. This offer is also in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. A finding of reasonable redress has therefore been made in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the smell in the property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about having to move out of the property due to major works.

  1. This Service acknowledges that having to move would be stressful for the resident and her family. However, the landlord’s explanation in its stage 1 response was acceptable. The evidence shows that the required repairs were substantial and intrusive making the home uninhabitable while the repairs were completed. The landlord’s decision to move the resident out was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. The landlord visited the resident to explain its need to decant which was appropriate. It listened to the resident’s concerns about moving temporarily and accommodated her by assisting her to apply for a permanent move.
  3. The records show that the landlord had discussed the process with the resident. It would have been reasonable however for the landlord to have provided any advice it gave about the decant and what was agreed in writing.
  4. This would have enabled it to clearly set out at the earliest stage what costs it would be responsible for and what ones it would not. It could have also set out next steps, expected time frames etc. It could have provided her with a copy of its decant policy so she could see what the landlord should be doing.
  5. This would have ensured that the resident was clear about the process and any questions she may have had could have been answered before the decant went ahead. It would have also ensured that the landlord had done all it could to manage the resident’s expectations. That it had not was unreasonable in the circumstances and a failing.
  6. In summary this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about having to move out of the property. While it discussed matters and assisted with applying for a permanent move. It failed to ensure that all advice was provided in writing to avoid confusion. When a resident is faced with a decant there are a lot of things to consider. Having this information in writing would have avoided any discrepancies in what was agreed and her expectations about what the landlord could do.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the 2-week period given to move properties.

  1. The landlord’s allocation policy sets out time frames for a resident to respond to an offer of property of one working day. It also sets out a time frame for accepting an offer of property of one working day after the viewing. This shows that the allocation period is quite quick. It is silent however on move in time frames. This is understandable given that not all properties may be ready at the point of offer.
  2. It would be reasonable however for a landlord to make the resident aware that the turnaround time is generally quite quick once the property is ready to let. There is no evidence to show what discussions were had with the resident about this. This shows poor record keeping. Again, this type of advice could have been provided in writing to the resident to manage her expectations and help her prepare for the move. The resident was vulnerable as was her household and more time could have possibly been facilitated if necessary.
  3. The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that had it known she required more time it would have accommodated this request. It believed she was keen to move because of the smell. There is no evidence to support this conversation. It would however be reasonable for the landlord to believe she was keen to move in these circumstances. There had clearly been a breakdown in communication in respect of this issue.
  4. In summary this Service considers the above failings amount to service failure. The landlord should have ensured that conversations with the resident about move times were documented. It could have then followed up in writing to avoid confusion. It failed to show that it had done all that it could to ensure the resident was aware of her options regarding the period to move.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

  1. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within its time scale. It was slightly outside of its stage 2-time scale by 1 day, but it sent an acknowledgement and set out when it would respond which it adhered to. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
  2. The landlord’s complaint responses evidenced a good investigation into the issues raised. It could have however considered its own communication with the resident, to ensure that it had done all that it could. The landlord did set out its position and apologised for the delays and sought to put things right. It appropriately offered redress to restore the applicant back to her original position. It also considered the stress and inconvenience caused.
  3. The landlord clearly explained its position relative to the resident’s concerns about the offer of property. Its response showed empathy and that it had listened to the resident’s concerns.
  4. It offered further support in respect of any financial hardship. It set out how the resident could progress her concerns about suitability of her new property. The response showed that it was trying to find solutions to the resident’s concerns.
  5. In summary this Service considers there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about an unpleasant smell in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about having to move out of the property due to major works.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the 2-week period given to move properties.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £225 compensation, made up of:
      1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about having to move out of the property due to major works.
      2. £75 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about the 2-week period given to move properties.

Recommendations

  1. The reasonable redress finding is dependent on the landlord paying the resident £2,000 as offered in its complaint responses in relation to its response to the resident’s concerns about the smell in the property.
  2. For clarity, this Service recommends that the landlord write to the resident to set out why the removal costs have not been paid by the landlord in this case.
  3. It is also recommended that the landlord considers whether any of the other costs claimed by the resident would be able to be claimed from its own insurers. It should discuss this with the resident and then set out its position to the resident in writing. If she is able to claim, it should advise her how she can do this.