Citizen Housing Group Limited (202310414)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310414

Citizen Housing

25 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 the resident’s:
1. reports of repairs and damp and mould in the property.
2. reports of cracks and structural defects in the property.
3. concerns about fire safety.
4. request for it to make reasonable adjustments and provide a property that met his disability needs.
5. rent account.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant under an agreement dated 13 July 2023. He signed a pre-tenancy assessment the same day. However, he never moved into the property. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat in a purpose-built block. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has physical disabilities and physical and mental health conditions. The landlord has recorded these vulnerabilities.
An independent assessor completed a fire risk assessment (FRA) in the resident’s block on 29 May 2023. The landlord’s records show that there was a previous leak in the property that had affected the kitchen wall. Its records from 2 August 2023 show that the resident had not moved into the property and it was in an acceptable condition.
The resident contacted the landlord several times between 7 August 2023 and 21 August 2023. He said:
1. there were several repairs in the property that the landlord should have addressed before he moved in. He had a disability and was unable to move in due to these issues.
2. there was damp and mould in multiple rooms which had led to a lot of insects around the property and an unpleasant smell.
3. the landlord had a duty under the Equality Act 2010 (Equality Act), and he wanted it to move him as an emergency to a property with a wet room and lower floor toilet access.
4. he had evidence of structural and foundation movements at the property. Hair cracks had appeared in the kitchen, the skirting board was twisted, and rain was coming through the external walls.
5. he had concerns about fire safety and breaches of fire safety regulations.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 8 and 21 August 2023. It raised a stage 1 complaint on 18 August 2023 and acknowledged this on 21 August 2023. The landlord arranged for its contractor and a surveyor to attend the resident’s property on 23 August 2023 to assess its condition. The landlord called the resident the same day. The resident said that Universal Credit (UC) should not be paying rent for the property as it was uninhabitable.
The landlord arranged to complete work on the resident’s property between 5 and 13 September 2023. It offered the resident another property on 24 August 2023, however he rejected this. The landlord informed the resident of the scheduled works on 29 August 2023. The resident called the landlord on 31 August 2023 and said it was receiving rent payments fraudulently as he was not living in the property. The landlord emailed the resident the same day.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 4 September 2023. It outlined the resident’s concerns and what he wanted to resolve the complaint. The landlord apologised for the issues in the resident’s home and how they had impacted him. It said:
1. the resident had contacted it on 11 August 2023 because there was damp and mould in several rooms in the property. However, he had refused damp and mould treatments on 16 August 2023. It had arranged to complete the work to resolve this between 5 and 13 September 2023.
2. it had offered the resident a 1-bedroom bungalow as a discretionary move. However, the resident had refused this property as it did not suit his needs.
3. it had advised the resident that there were no other properties available. He had mentioned that there were suitable properties on its system that would meet his needs because they had wet rooms. It was unable to comment on this and would send the information to the relevant department to advise.
4. it could not find any evidence to support the resident’s assertion that it had acted unlawfully by not making reasonable adjustments for him under the Equality Act or the Human Rights Act 1998 (Human Rights Act). It would not have disadvantaged the resident because of his disability or any other factor.
5. he would need to provide a letter from his Occupational Therapist saying he needed a wet room. This was in line with its procedures when it considered any adaptions to its properties.
6. its surveyor would inspect the cracks in the property the resident had reported and the foundations. It would contact the resident to book an appointment.
7. it had passed the resident’s concerns regarding fire safety to the relevant person to look into this for him.
The landlord emailed the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to cancel the rent payments on the resident’s property on 5 September 2023. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on 6 September 2023 as he remained dissatisfied. The resident called the landlord on 14 September 2023 about it taking rent money from his bank account. The landlord attended the property to inspect the work its contractor had completed on 19 September 2023. It offered to undertake an independent survey.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 4 October 2023. The landlord said:
1. an occupational assessment prior to the resident moving into the property confirmed that it was suitable for his needs. If he needed adaptions he should speak to his Occupational Therapist (OT) and once it received their assessment it could forward this to the relevant team to carry out the additional work.
2. as the resident was unable to move into the property on 13 July 2023, it had offered him an alternative property on 24 August 2023. The resident rejected this as he deemed it unsuitable because there was no wet room and the kitchen was very small.
3. it was sorry that the resident could not move into the property at the start of his tenancy due to outstanding repairs and damp and mould. This was due to mistakes by its contractors. Its maintenance team worked promptly to rectify this, and the property was habitable as of 19 September 2023.
4. the readings from the damp and mould survey were clear and its surveyor had advised there were no safety concerns regarding structural issues in the property. It had offered to arrange an independent survey. However, the resident had refused this as he did not want to continue with the tenancy.
5. the resident’s safety was its top priority. It could confirm that its external contractor completed a fire risk assessment at the resident’s block on 29 May 2023 and it did not have to complete any further work following this.
6. it was sorry if the payments it had received had caused the resident any distress and hoped to reassure him it had not acted fraudulently. It contacted DWP on 5 September 2023 to request that it cancelled the payments. It had also reimbursed the 2 payments it had received.
7. it had sourced a 1-bedroom bungalow with a wet room for the resident, and it would contact him as soon as possible.
8. it would also refund the cost for the resident’s appliances, the £58.45 he had paid towards rent and any council tax and other utility costs he had incurred while being unable to live at the property if he provided the bills.
9. it was sorry that in certain areas its service had fallen below its expected levels. Its compensation policy allowed it to offer a total of £1,485.45 as follows:
  1. £250 for the failure to identify problems following its contractors work on the property while it was empty.
  2. £250 for the inconvenience and stress caused in the delay and then subsequently not moving into the property.
  3. £309 reimbursement for the fridge freezer.
  4. £339 reimbursement for the cooker.
  5. £279 reimbursement for the washing machine.
  6. £58.45 reimbursement for the rent paid by the resident.
10. it had provided feedback to the relevant department to ensure it completed adequate inspections.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 12 October 2023. He requested face to face meetings with the landlord’s senior directors to discuss his disabilities. He wanted an explanation for it not making reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. He wanted the landlord to take disciplinary action against specified members of staff and refund the rent payments he had made. He requested a move to specified properties and wanted the landlord to pay compensation for the delivery and installation of appliances when he moved to a new property.
The tenancy agreement on the resident’s new property started on 14 November 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

As part of their complaint, the resident said that the issues exacerbated his existing health conditions. We are unable to determine the cause of any health conditions or the liability for this. These matters are better suited to consideration as a personal injury claim and if the resident wishes to pursue this concern, he may wish to seek independent legal advice. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
The resident said that they wanted the landlord to discipline certain members of staff. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by the individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings or employment matters.
When investigating a complaint about a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider the response of the landlord as a whole and will only comment on the actions of individuals in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman would make a determination and any associated orders and recommendations against the landlord rather than the individual.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident referred to several other issues including issues with his new property. These matters did not form part of the original complaint brought to us. It is unclear whether the resident raised these issues as a separate complaint. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues addressed in the landlord’s stage 2 response on 4 October 2023. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.
The resident has said that the landlord acted unlawfully by not making reasonable adjustments for him in accordance with the Equality Act and the Human Rights Act. The Ombudsman cannot decide if the landlord is in breach of these acts. That is a matter for the courts. However, we can look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and whether it acted fairly based on its duties and policies.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it would:
1. respond to reports of damp and mould in resident’s homes in a timely manner.
2. assess for damp and mould in empty properties and where it identified remedial works it would complete these be in a timely manner.
3. undertake work to address damp and mould before the property was relet, and no property would be relet with damp and mould present.
The landlord’s void standards state that:
1. it would carry out all repairs to make the home safe, secure clean and in a lettable condition before the resident moved in.
2. all properties must comply with current legislation including the Decent Homes Standard. This stated that the property must be free from dampness prejudicial to the health of the resident.
The occupancy agreement states that:
1. the resident must move into the property at the start of the agreement.
2. the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property.
3. the resident is responsible for internal decorations.
4. the resident must make and maintain the application for any benefit to pay some or all their rent.
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (Fire Safety Order 2005) sets out that landlords should complete fire risk assessments for buildings with 2 or more sets of domestic premises. The landlord’s fire management policy is compliant with this. It states that:
1. it would undertake a FRA to its properties using competent fire risk assessors. The assessor would decide the frequency of these assessments based on risk in accordance with their agreed methodology.
2. it would provide residents with fire information at the start of their tenancy.
The landlord’s lettings policy states that:
1. it would consider emergency transfers where there were circumstances that that threaten the life or safety of the resident, or other household members, if they remained in the property.
2. it would work with statutory partner organisations to confirm the severity of the situation to ensure its decisions were appropriate.
3. if it was unable to obtain any supporting evidence from external agencies or professionals it is unlikely that it would award an emergency transfer.
4. it would only facilitate an emergency transfer when alternative accommodation was available.
5. it would consider a discretionary move where there were circumstances that seriously impacted the health or wellbeing of the resident if they were to remain in the property.
The landlord’s discretionary compensation framework states that it would consider the duration of any avoidable distress or inconvenience and the seriousness of any other unfair impact as follows:
1. low impact £0 to £250.
2. medium impact £250 to £699.
3. high impact £700 and over.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs and damp and mould at the property

The landlord’s records show that the property was ready to let on 21 June 2023. The landlord’s records show that there was a previous leak in the property and the kitchen wall required repair. The landlord inspected the property on 2 August 2023 as part of its post tenancy checks and deemed it to be in an acceptable condition other than an issue with the kitchen window. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 August 2023. He reported that there were several repairs outstanding in the property and he was unable to move in due to these issues and his disability.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 8 August 2023. It noted that the main issue was a smell and staining on the hallway cupboard wall, which adjoined the bathroom, and was the area that a leak had affected while the property was empty. The landlord’s repairs policy at the time did not stipulate a timeframe to attend to repairs. Even so, the landlord attended the resident’s property the day after he reported the issues. This was reasonable. However, it is unclear why these issues were not evident when it inspected the property on 2 August 2023.
The resident called the landlord on 11 August 2023. He said there were lots of flies in the property and the bathroom wall was wet due to damp. The landlord’s records from 16 August 2023 show that the resident had refused a temporary damp treatment. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it would respond to reports of damp and mould in a timely manner. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this treatment to the resident.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 and 21 August 2023 and reiterated his concerns about damp and mould. He requested an emergency move as he said he was prone to infection due to his condition. The landlord’s records from 21 August 2023 show that the landlord had inspected the resident’s property. It suspected that its contractor had not used dehumidifiers to dry the property out prior to starting work which had led to trapped moisture from the leak. It also found that its contractor did not fit the bathroom plasterboard correctly as the inner side was wet and covered in black mould.
The landlord acted promptly in inspecting the resident’s property. This was reasonable. Additionally, the landlord’s records show that it arranged to replace 3 window units. Due to resident’s condition, it also applied caulk to areas where the resident said dirt could get into his property. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this as its repairs policy states that internal decorations were the resident’s responsibility.
The landlord arranged for its contractor and a surveyor to attend the property on 23 August 2023. It acted promptly in doing this in line with its repairs policy on damp and mould. Therefore, this was appropriate. However, the landlord needed to complete repairs to the property and its contractor instructed that the resident would not be able to stay there while it completed these.
The landlord’s repairs policy on damp and mould states that it would undertake work to address damp and mould before it rented a property out. Its void standards state that it would carry out all repairs to make the home safe, secure clean and in a lettable condition before the resident moved in. The landlord’s void standards also states that properties would be free from damp prejudicial to health.
The landlord became aware of issues with the previous repairs on 21 August 2023. Whilst the landlord had to complete repairs to resolve damp and mould after it had rented out the property, the evidence suggests that the previous repair issues were not evident at the time of the pre-tenancy assessment.
The landlord offered an alternative property to the resident on 24 August 2023 as he could move into that without delay. The resident rejected this property as it did not meet his needs. The landlord’s lettings policy states that it would consider a discretionary move where there were circumstances that seriously impacted the health or wellbeing of the resident if they were remain in the property. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this.
The landlord arranged for its contractor to complete the repairs at the resident’s property between 5 and 13 September 2023. The landlord informed the resident of this on 29 August 2023. It confirmed that the resident had somewhere to stay while its contractor completed the repairs. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this. Additionally, although the landlord’s repairs policy at the time did not stipulate timescales to complete repairs, it arranged to complete these repairs in a reasonable timescale.
The landlord’s records from 30 August 2023 show that the damp and mould readings from the surveyor’s inspection were acceptable, apart from the adjoining hallway and bathroom wall that the leak had affected. There is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of this. It would have been reasonable for it do so. However, on 1 September 2023 the landlord told the resident that a surveyor would retest the walls for damp readings.
In its stage 1 response of 4 September 2023 the landlord apologised for the issues in the resident’s property. It was reasonable for it to do this. Additionally, it said that it aimed to complete the repairs by 13 September 2023 and reiterated that a surveyor would retest the walls for damp. On 19 September 2023 the landlord inspected the property and confirmed that its contractor had completed the repairs and the property was habitable. This was appropriate as the landlord had acted as it said it would.
The landlord’s records from 19 September 2023 show that it had informed the resident that it had carried out a damp inspection using a qualified surveyor and the readings had come back clear. However, the landlord has not provided any record of a second inspection taking place. Therefore, it is unclear which inspection the landlord was referring to. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs from March 2019 highlights the importance of landlord’s keeping clear, accurate and easily accessible records, including when the resident raised the issue, when it completed any work and any action taken.
The landlord’s records from 19 September 2023 show that it offered to undertake an independent survey to prove the property was fit for habitation. The resident said he would not move into the property even if an independent survey proved this. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer to complete an independent survey to try and reassure the resident.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 4 October 2023. It apologised as the resident was unable to move into the property at the start of his tenancy and provided an explanation for this. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this. The landlord also offered £500 compensation for this. This was reasonable.

Summary and conclusions

In summary, the landlord:
1. delayed in providing information from its surveyor’s inspection for damp and mould to the resident.
2. failed to maintain or provide records from the second surveyor’s inspection.
However, the landlord acted promptly to identify and complete the outstanding repairs once the resident reported them. It was quick to offer the resident a temporary damp treatment and acted promptly to complete an inspection for damp and mould in line with its policy on damp and mould. It also completed some internal decorations in the resident’s property. It informed the resident of when it would complete the repairs and confirmed he had somewhere to stay while they were ongoing. Additionally, it offered the resident a move to an alternative property so as not to delay his move further.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged its failings around outstanding repairs when the resident’s tenancy started. It apologised for this and offered £500 compensation. Additionally, while there was a delay in providing information from the first surveyor’s inspection and a failure to provide records of the second surveyor’s inspection, the landlord offered to undertake an independent survey. However, the resident said he did not want to move into the property as it did not meet his needs.
After careful consideration of the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy. We consider that the landlord has offered reasonable redress of £500. This appropriately recognises the distress, inconvenience and upset caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and repairs in the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of cracks and structural defects in the property.

The resident first reported cracks and structural defects in the property to the landlord in his emails of 21 August 2023. The landlord responded the same day and told the resident it would respond to his concerns as part of his complaint, and he could expect a response by 4 September 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide a prompt response and inform the resident of this.
The landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend the resident’s property on 23 August 2023. Its records from 30 August 2023 show that the surveyor reported that apart from the part of the property impacted by the leak it “was in fantastic condition both physically and cosmetically”. The landlord’s repairs policy at the time did not stipulate timescales for it to attend properties for repairs. However, the landlord acted promptly in arranging for a surveyor to attend the property. This was reasonable.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 1 September 2023. He mentioned cracks inside the property and to some external brickwork. He expressed concerns that the foundations were faulty. The landlord explained that a surveyor was due to inspect the property for this. The landlord reiterated this in its stage 1 response of 4 September 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to keep the resident updated.
The landlord’s records from 19 September 2023 show that it had told the resident it had inspected the property and there were no concerns. As the landlord has not provided any record of a second surveyor’s inspection it is unclear which inspection the landlord was referring to. It offered to undertake an independent survey as the resident had concerns about subsidence. The resident refused this. Even so, it was reasonable of the landlord to offer this. In its stage 2 response of 4 October 2023 the landlord confirmed that its surveyor had advised there were no safety issues. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm this.

Summary and conclusions

In summary, the landlord:
1. acted promptly in arranging for a surveyor to inspect the resident’s property when he reported cracks and structural concerns.
2. kept the resident informed in its contact with him and in its complaint responses.
3. offered to undertake an independent survey to reassure him.
The landlord has not provided records from the second surveyor’s inspection. This was an oversight. However, the resident said he would not move into the property even if the landlord completed an independent survey as it did not meet his needs. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of cracks and structural defects in the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about fire safety

The landlord’s records show that an independent assessor completed a FRA of the resident’s block on 29 May 2023. The assessor found no immediate concerns and the report dated 10 July 2023 recommended that the reassessment date should be 10 July 2026.
The landlord’s fire management policy states that it would undertake a FRA to its properties using competent assessors who would decide the frequency of these assessments. Therefore, it was appropriate for an independent assessor to complete a FRA in the resident’s block and decide when the next assessment would be.
The resident signed a pre-tenancy assessment on 13 July 2023. This contained fire safety information including the landlord’s “stay put” policy. Additionally, the landlord sent an email to the resident on 13 July 2023 which included information on fire safety in communal areas. The landlord’s fire management policy states that it would provide residents with fire information at the start of their tenancy. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to provide this information to the resident when his tenancy started on 13 July 2023.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 August 2023 and raised concerns about fire safety and breaches of fire safety regulations. He said residents were not aware of the fire assembly point and there was a lack of fire extinguishers and fire alarms or fire alarm panels in the building. The landlord responded the same day and told the resident that it would address his concerns as part of his complaint, and he could expect a response by 4 September 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to respond promptly and inform the resident of this.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 4 September 2023. It said it had passed the resident’s concerns to the relevant person who would investigate. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about fire safety as it said it would. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to obtain this information and provide it to the resident in the stage 1 response.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 4 October 2023. It confirmed that an external contractor had completed a FRA in the resident’s block on 29 May 2023 and it did not need to complete any further work following this. It also explained that there was no need for his block to have a communal fire alarm system as it had a “stay put” evacuation strategy. It told the resident he could find this information in his block. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide this information to the resident as it had acted in line with its fire management policy in completing a FRA.

Summary and conclusions

In summary, the landlord:
1. completed an independent FRA in line with its fire management policy and the Fire Safety Order 2005.
2. provided fire safety information, including the evacuation strategy, to the resident when his tenancy starts in line with its fire management policy.
3. addressed the resident’s concerns about fire safety in its stage 2 response.
However, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about fire safety in its stage 1 response after it said it would in its email of 21 August 2023. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about fire safety. The delay in communicating a response to the resident would have likely caused him distress and inconvenience. The landlord should pay the resident compensation to recognise how its failure impacted him.
Having carefully considered the guidance on remedies and the landlord’s compensation guidance a fair level of compensation would be £50. This appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s communication failures in its handling of the resident’s concerns about fire safety. The landlord should also write a letter of apology to the resident for this failing.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to make reasonable adjustments and provide a property that met his disability needs

In his emails of 18 and 21 August 2023 the resident requested an emergency move to a property with a wet room and lower floor access toilet due to his health conditions. The landlord responded on 21 August 2023. It told the resident that it would address his concerns as part of his complaint, and he should receive a response by 4 September 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to respond promptly and provide this information to the resident.
The landlord offered the resident an alternative property as a discretionary move on 24 August 2023. However, he rejected this as it did not meet his needs. The landlord’s lettings policy says that it could offer discretionary moves. The pre–tenancy assessment signed by the resident on 13 July 2023 did not say that he needed any physical disability aids or adaptions. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this property.
The resident said that he wanted the landlord to fit a wet room in the property on 1 September 2023. The landlord explained that it would be refitting a bath, and it could fit a wet room later if it decided to do so. The pre-tenancy assessment signed by the resident on 13 July 2023 did not state that he required physical disability aids or adaptions. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain this.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 4 September 2023. It said no suitable properties were available at the time. The landlord’s lettings policy says that it would only facilitate an emergency transfer when alternative accommodation was available. Therefore, it was appropriate to inform the resident of this. However, the landlord also said that the relevant department would respond to resident’s queries about the suitable properties he had seen on its system. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide this information in its stage 1 response.
In its stage 1 response the landlord also told the resident that he would need to provide a letter from his OT as to why he needed to have a wet room fitted. The landlord’s lettings policy states that it would work with partner organisations to confirm the severity of the situation to ensure its decisions were appropriate. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident to provide a letter from his OT.
The resident told the landlord on 19 September 2023 that he would not move into the property because it did not have a wet room. In its stage 2 response of 4 October 2023 the landlord told the resident that an occupational assessment prior to him accepting the property had confirmed it was suitable for his needs. It apologised that the resident felt that the property was not suitable for his needs and said once it received the OT’s assessment, it would carry out the additional work. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain this to the resident in line with its policies and procedures.
Additionally, in its stage 2 response the landlord said it had sourced a 1-bedroom bungalow with a wet room for the resident to move into. In doing this the landlord demonstrated that it had considered the resident’s needs and made reasonable adjustments for him. This was reasonable.

Summary and conclusions

In summary, the landlord:
1. responded to the resident’s initial concerns in a prompt manner and informed him when it would address them.
2. offered the resident an alternative property that matched his pre–tenancy assessment.
3. kept in contact with the resident and explained that it would not be fitting a wet room which was reasonable, as the pre–tenancy assessment confirmed that the resident did not require any adaptations.
4. explained in its stage 1 response that there were no suitable properties in line with its lettings policy.
5. explained in its complaints responses that it would require an assessment from the resident’s OT to fit a wet room.
6. offered to fit a wet room in the resident’s property in its stage 2 response if he could provide an assessment from his OT that said he required one.
7. offered an alternative property with a wet room to the resident in its stage 2 response which he has since moved into.
The landlord did not provide information regarding the properties the resident had highlighted as being suitable in its stage 1 response. This was a shortcoming. However, the landlord told the resident that no suitable properties were available in its stage 1 response. It also offered the resident a property with a wet room in its stage 2 response.
Therefore, the Ombudsman has found that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to make reasonable adjustments and provide a property that suited his disability needs.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account

The resident called the landlord on 22 August 2023 to check which property the UC was paying rent on as he was living in another property. The landlord called the resident back on 23 August 2023. He said UC should not be paying rent on the property as it was uninhabitable and he would inform DWP that it needed to reclaim the rent. It was reasonable of the landlord to call the resident back. The tenancy agreement states that residents were responsible for maintaining their application for benefit to pay their rent.
The resident called the landlord on 31 August 2023 and said it was receiving fraudulent rent payments from UC. The landlord emailed the resident on 31 August 2023 and informed him that he would not be liable for rent until it completed the outstanding work. It was reasonable of the landlord to explain this to the resident. The landlord said its resolution team would respond to his complaint. However, it is unclear if it had included the issue with the resident’s rent account in this. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 4 September 2023 did not mention the resident’s rent account.
The landlord emailed the DWP on 5 September 2023 to cancel payments for housing costs at the resident’s property with immediate effect. The landlord also asked the DWP to invoice it for the 2 rent payments it had already received. It called the resident on 11 September 2023 and informed him that it had done this. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this.
The resident called the landlord on 14 September 2023. He said the landlord had taken money from his bank account as well as from his UC. In its stage 2 response of 4 October 2023, the landlord apologised if the payments it had taken for rent had caused the resident any distress. It confirmed that it had cancelled his rent payments and reimbursed the 2 payments taken to the DWP. It also offered to reimburse the rent payment it had taken from the resident’s bank account. The landlord’s records from 9 October 2023 show that it has refunded 2 payments of £409.12 to the DWP. This was reasonable.

Summary and conclusion

In summary, the landlord would have expected the resident to move into the property on 13 July 2023 in line with his tenancy agreement. Additionally, the resident was responsible for maintaining his application for benefit for his rent. When it became apparent that the resident was not going to be living in the property, the landlord cancelled his liability for rent and contacted the DWP to reimburse the rent payments it had taken. The landlord has since reimbursed these payments and offered to reimburse the rent payments taken from the resident’s bank account.
Therefore, the Ombudsman has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It states that:
1. a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction however made.
2. it would respond at stage 1 within 10 working days unless it had informed the resident that it needed an extension.
3. it would respond at stage 2 within 20 working days unless it had informed the resident that it needed an extension.
The resident was showing his dissatisfaction in his contact with the landlord from 7 August 2023. The landlord promptly recognised this and raised a complaint on 18 August 2023. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 21 August 2023. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a complaint was an expression of dissatisfaction however made. Therefore, this was appropriate.
As the landlord had acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 21 August 2023 it had 10 working days until 4 September 2023 to provide its stage 1 response. The landlord provided this response on 4 September 2023. This was appropriate in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. However, this response did not say if the landlord had upheld the resident’s complaints. This was an oversight.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on 6 September 2023. Therefore, it had 20 working days until 4 October 2023 to provide its stage 2 response. It provided this response on 4 October 2023. This was appropriate in line with the landlord’s complaint policy. The stage 2 response also outlined what it had learned from the resident’s complaint and what action it had taken as a result. The Code states that landlords should provide this information in complaints responses. Therefore, this was appropriate.
In summary, the landlord did not say if it had upheld the resident’s complaint in its stage 1 response. This was an oversight, and the landlord was quick to escalate the resident’s complaint. Additionally, the landlord was quick to identify the resident’s complaint and provided its responses within the required timescales. The landlord also outlined its learning in its stage 2 response. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs and damp and mould at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about cracks and structural defects in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about fire safety.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for it to make reasonable adjustments and provide a property that met his disability needs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days the landlord should:
1. write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay the resident £50 compensation, which it must not offset against any arrears, to recognise the likely upset and distress caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about fire safety.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of this determination.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. pays the £1,485.45 offered in its stage 2 response to the resident if it has not already done so.
2. reimburses any council tax and other utility bills the resident had incurred while not living at the property, as outlined in its stage 2 response. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contacts the resident and asks him to provide evidence that he has paid these so that it can reimburse him.