Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202224863)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224863

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited

13 May 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns about its request for rent in advance of a property viewing.
2. Request for decoration vouchers.
3. Request to repair shelving.
4. Reports of an issue with the flooring.
5. Request for redress of council tax.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 30 August 2022. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The property is a 2 bedroom first floor flat.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 August 2022 to invite her to view a property. It asked the resident to pay a minimum of the first weeks rent the following day despite the viewing not taking place until 30 August. Having accepted the property the landlord agreed to provide the resident with decoration vouchers however she did not receive them until 19 October.
Following the viewing, the resident also requested that the landlord replace the shelves in the pantry cupboard. She also started works to lay her own flooring and contacted the landlord on 28 October to report that the floor was crumbling away. In November the landlord removed the floor tiles throughout the property, except in the bathroom, and screeded the floors. The resident said she had been unable to live at the property due to its condition and asked the landlord assist her with her council tax bill.
This investigation has not seen a copy of the resident’s stage 1 complaint however, the landlord’s records show that it was made on 10 November 2022. In her complaint the resident set out her dissatisfaction with the condition of the property and the landlord’s appointments system.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 6 December 2022, as follows:
1. Having inspected the flooring it confirmed that it contained asbestos. It had raised an order for the floor tiles to be removed and floors screeded.
2. It had inspected the pantry cupboard and found it to be in “satisfactory condition.” However because the shelves where a little old, and had a slight bow in them, it renewed them as a gesture of goodwill.
3. It apologised for the delay in issuing the decoration vouchers which was not up to its “usual standards.”
4. It offered £300 in compensation.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 December 2022 to say that she:
1. Had felt pressurised into paying rent in advance of the property viewing.
2. Remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the delay in issuing the decoration vouchers.
3. Was dissatisfied with the works to the pantry cupboard shelves because the bottom one had not been replaced.
4. She asked how the £300 compensation had been calculated.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 14 January 2023, the main points being:
1. It did not take payments ahead of property viewings and it was satisfied that its process was followed correctly.
2. It acknowledged that the voucher was requested but not posted out in a timely manner. It apologised and said it would make sure vouchers were issued “as soon as practicably possible” in future.
3. Following a property inspection on 22 November 2022 it agreed that 3 shelves would be replaced. It said there was no evidence that discussions took place about the wooden boxing to the bottom of the cupboard. However, as a gesture of goodwill it agreed to replace it.
4. It apologised for the resident’s experience and said it had learnt from the complaint to make sure it did not happen again. It offered £400 compensation.
The resident contacted this Service on 31 January 2023 because she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response. She contacted us again on 11 August 2023 to say she was dissatisfied that the landlord had declined to change the tenancy start date.
This investigation has not seen a copy of the resident’s formal complaint about her request that the landlord change the tenancy start date. However, the landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response on 17 October 2023. It said that, having agreed a timeline of events with the resident during call on 12 October, it would not change the tenancy start date. This was because it considered the property was habitable while the asbestos was being removed.
On 23 October 2023 the resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process because she remained dissatisfied with its response.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 19 December 2023, the main points being:
1. “The asbestos risk was low, but to vacate the property during this time was the correct mitigation.”
2. It considered that the £400 offered in the previous stage 2 complaint response “sufficiently dealt with the inconvenience caused.”
3. The tenancy started on 30 August 2022, it received a call from the resident on 31 October to report concerns regarding the flooring. By 5 December the asbestos survey had been carried out, the tiles removed and the floor screeded. Therefore, it could not provide evidence to the local authority to revoke the council tax bill between 30 August 2022 to 31 March 2023.
4. As a gesture of goodwill, and as redress for the inconvenience caused, it offered an additional £130 which covered the council tax for November and December 2022.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations policies and procedures

The health and safety executive sets out detailed steps that should be taken when removing asbestos-containing floor tiles in its good practice guide. It says that access to the area should be restricted and tape and notices used to warn others.
The landlord’s asbestos management plan says that it will address those items identified by assessments/surveys which require urgent attention. This may mean that the items are removed completely, or repaired, encapsulated or enclosed.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It also reserves the right to refuse to deal with a complaint and says that if a resident’s enquiry is an ‘exception’ it will write to the resident setting out a detailed explanation for its decision.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will make discretionary payments, including where it has failed to follow its policies and procedures and/or poor complaint handling. Where it has full responsibility for the loss or inconvenience suffered it will consider awarding compensation as follows:
1. £100 for minor impact.
2. £250 for moderate impact.
3. £500 for severe impact.

Rent in advance

The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 August 2022 and requested that she pay “a minimum of the first weeks rent tomorrow.” On 14 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say that she felt pressured into paying rent prior to viewing the property. She found this stressful because she did not know at that point whether she would accept it.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 14 January 2023 summarised its lettings process. It said that it did not request payment in advance of a resident accepting an offer of accommodation. Its response was inappropriate because it failed to acknowledge the letter that was issued on 26 August 2022 and provide an explanation for the request made.
The evidence shows that the landlord did not carry out a thorough investigation of the resident’s complaint at stage 2. This is because a later response to this Service explained that it had made an error in the letter. The viewing was not taking place the following day, Saturday 27 August, but on Tuesday 30 August. The request was therefore inaccurate and inappropriate because the resident was asked to pay rent in advance for a property she had not yet viewed.
The landlord said this was a genuine mistake and that appropriate training had been given to the entire lettings team to ensure it did not happen again. The error caused distress to the resident. Furthermore, the landlord failed to use its internal complaints process to identify and acknowledge its failure. It therefore also failed to put things right for the resident. The failures amount to maladministration. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Decoration vouchers

The landlord handed the resident the keys to the property on 31 August 2022 and said it would provide her with decoration vouchers. When the resident emailed the officer responsible for issuing the vouchers on 31 August she received an ‘out of office’ notification which provided an alternative contact.
When the resident contacted the alternative officer, also on 31 August 2022, they did not reply until 8 September. When they did, they said they were only dealing with urgent matters and that her query would be dealt with by her colleague when he returned the following week. It was unreasonable that the landlord delayed in responding to the resident and that when it did, it was unable to assist with what was a relatively minor administration task.
The resident chased the landlord again on 16 September 2022. It replied the same day to say the vouchers “should” have been issued. It asked the resident to check they had not been received and if not, it would chase. The resident replied on 24 September to confirm she was not in receipt of the vouchers. The landlord emailed the resident on 26 September to confirm they would be emailed out by the following day at the latest.
The resident was caused distress, inconvenience, time and trouble when she chased the landlord again on 4, 6 and 15 October 2022 because she had not received the vouchers. The responsible officer emailed the resident on 17 October to confirm he was of the understanding the vouchers had been issued and that he would see “what was going on.” On 19 October the resident emailed the landlord to confirm that she received the vouchers on 17 October.
In its stage 1 complaint response of 6 December 2022 the landlord apologised for the delay saying it “was not up to its usual standards.”
In its stage 2 complaint response of 13 January 2023 the landlord confirmed that officers only deal with urgent enquiries in a colleague’s absence to ensure its “communities colleagues are able to prioritise their workloads.” It apologised again for the delay and said it had fed back to the communities team to ensure learnings took place and that vouchers are issued “as soon as practically possible.”
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. Despite the resident’s efforts to chase the vouchers it took the landlord just under 2 months to issue them which was unreasonable. This caused distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident. The landlord has not set out its learning from the complaint or what it will do differently which is inappropriate.
The failures amount to maladministration. In its stage 1 response of 6 December 2022 the landlord offered £300 compensation “for any delays” and issues with the floor. It increased its offer to £400 in its stage 2 complaint response of 14 January 2023. In its email to the resident of 16 January the landlord said that the compensation related to the period when the property was not habitable due to the presence of asbestos.
Given that the delay in issuing the decoration vouchers did not prevent the resident living in the property, it is reasonable for this investigation to conclude that the landlord did not offer financial redress for this failure.
It is noted that in its email to the resident of 15 January 2024 the landlord offered £50 compensation for the delayed vouchers. The landlord did not revisit its offer of compensation for a year after its final complaint response. This means that this Service does not consider it an offer of compensation made as part of the complaint. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Shelving

In the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 10 November 2022 she expressed her dissatisfaction about the general condition of the property. The landlord responded appropriately on 14 November by offering to carry out an inspection.
The landlord’s internal records show that following the inspection it raised an order on 1 December 2022 to renew shelving in the pantry cupboard, as a “gesture of goodwill.” In its stage 1 complaint response of 6 December the landlord confirmed that the works were complete.
In her stage 2 complaint of 14 December 2022 the resident said that only 3 of the shelves had been replaced and that the bottom one was loose to the point where it could be lifted. The landlord asked her to provide a photo which she provided by email on 12 January 2023.
The landlord replied the same day, 12 January 2023, to say that the item in question was boxing rather than a shelf although it could be used as such. It offered to attend and screw it down as a gesture of goodwill which the resident accepted.
The detriment caused to the resident by the shelving being old and “slightly bowed” was minimal. The landlord’s response was appropriate because it used its discretion to be fair and put things right for the resident. Therefore, this investigation finds there was no evidence of maladministration.

Asbestos

On 28 October 2022 the resident’s sister emailed the landlord to report that they had started work to replace the flooring. However, the existing corridor flooring was crumbling and falling apart. Following a further telephone call the landlord responded appropriately by raising a works order on 31 October to carry out an asbestos survey.
A ‘refurbishment’ survey to all the flooring was carried out on 8 November 2022 which identified “very low risk asbestos materials.” This was an appropriate response which was in line with its asbestos management policy.
The landlord’s internal file note dated 1 December 2022 noted that following the asbestos survey all the floor tiles would be removed. This was an appropriate response which was in line with its asbestos management policy. It intended to screed the floors to make good. In its second stage 1 complaint response of 17 October 2023 the landlord confirmed that the tiles were removed and the floors screeded by 5 December 2022.
During its stage 1 complaint response of 6 December 2022 the landlord said that the asbestos found in the floor tiles was common within properties of that age and the tiles contained a “really low” amount of asbestos. In its second stage 1 complaint response of 17 October 2023 it said that it considered the property to be habitable during the period of removal. It reiterated its position in its email to the resident on 8 November. However, its stage 2 complaint response of 19 December said that although the risk was low “to vacate the property during this time was the correct mitigation.”
It is concerning that the landlord’s position on whether the resident should remain in the property while the tiles were removed was not consistent. Its stage 2 complaint response contradicted its previous responses, causing confusion and distress to the resident. Furthermore, it is noted that the landlord only changed its position when challenged by the resident in her email of 8 November 2023.
Despite being given the opportunity to provide evidence to this Service the landlord has failed to provide copies of any risk assessments carried out in relation to the removal of the tiles. Even though the landlord considered the risk to be low it should have carried out a risk assessment and discussed the results with the resident. This should reasonably have included a discussion around whether it was advisable for the resident to remain in the property while works took place.
The guidance provided by the health and safety executive is evidence that this type of work can be hazardous. Given the landlord’s stage 2 response of 19 December 2023 it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure that the resident had made suitable alternative arrangements and if not, to consider arranging to decant the resident to temporary accommodation. This was a failing which shows a lack of regard for the resident’s health and safety.
On 8 May 2024 the landlord advised this Service that it does not have a decant policy. However, it has provided a procedure for ‘unplanned decants’ that was in place at the time of the complaint. The procedure says that residents should not be at a financial disadvantage by a decant. Furthermore, it should consider other arrangements specific to individual need, to be decided on an adhoc basis. There is no evidence that the landlord discussed the resident’s needs with her at the time she moved out of the property to reduce the potential risk of harm.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 6 December 2022 offered the resident £300 for “any delays” and the issues with the floor. In its stage 2 complaint response of 14 January 2023 the landlord offered an additional £100 compensation, making a total of £400 compensation for the resident’s “experience” in moving into her new property.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 January 2023 to seek clarification on how the offer of compensation was calculated. The landlord replied on 16 January to say that it had originally calculated the amount of compensation at just below 50% rent reimbursement for 2 months.
The stage 2 complaint review considered that this was “slightly low.” It said that considering the works to ensure the property was habitable it raised the offer to £400 which equated to 55% rent reimbursement. Given its explanation, and that it clarified that the shelving did not stop the resident moving into the property, it is reasonable for this investigation to conclude that the compensation offered by the landlord related to the asbestos issue only.
The weekly rent for 2022 was £88.95. The evidence shows that the property was not habitable, due to the presence of asbestos, between 28 October and 5 December which was a period of 5 weeks and 3 days (rounded up to 6 weeks). Therefore, this investigation considers it reasonable that the landlord pay the resident for loss of amenity totalling £533.70. The landlord may deduct the £400 it has offered if this has already been paid.
This investigation considers that the landlord’s failings caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident, amounting maladministration. This would have amounted to severe maladministration were it not for the fact that a) the resident eliminated any potential risk by taking the decision to move out and b) the landlord responded in a timely manner as part of its attempt to put things right.
The landlord’s second stage 2 complaint response of 19 December 2023 said that it considered the £400 offered on 14 January “sufficiently dealt with the inconvenience caused.” Given the landlords calculation of compensation, this investigation reasonably considers the compensation to be for loss of amenity, not distress and inconvenience.
The resident was caused inconvenience, distress, time and trouble because she had to move out of the property during the removal. She also had to postpone the flooring works and make arrangements for work to commence at a later date. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance sets out that compensation in the range of £600 to £1000 should be awarded where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. Therefore, and in line with this guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £800 for distress and inconvenience.

Council tax

Scope of the investigation

The resident made a further complaint, not seen by this investigation, requesting that the landlord change the tenancy start date because she was being charged council tax for a period when she was not living at the property. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 17 October 2023 confirmed that the resident asked it to do one of three things which were to amend the tenancy start date, provide redress her for her council tax bill or write to the local authority to confirm that she was not living in the property between 31 August 2022 to March 2023.

Tenancy start date

The landlord’s email to the resident of 8 November 2023 said that she took responsibility for the property on the date she took her keys and signed the tenancy agreement. It said that the date she began to occupy the property was down to her “personal choice and circumstances.” The date was therefore correct and could not be changed.
The resident entered into a contractual agreement with the landlord, based on her tenancy starting on 30 August 2022. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord declined to amend the tenancy start date.

Council tax

In her email to the landlord on 8 November 2023 the resident queried the landlord’s response and requested that it confirm she was not living at the property from August to December 2022. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 19 December 2023 said that following a conversation with the resident it understood she was asking it to confirm that she did not live at the property between 30 August 2022 to 31 March 2023.
The landlord confirmed that it could only consider the period 31 October to 5 December 2022 when works took place in relation to the asbestos. As a gesture of goodwill it offered £130 to cover the council tax charge for November and December.
On 27 December 2023 the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response adding that the 3 months it excluded were “vital” due to delays it caused. She said the landlord’s own records showed that she did not move into the property when she was given the keys.
On 15 January 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to say it was not aware that it had delayed in providing the decorating vouchers. It therefore increased the compensation to £400 to cover the council tax charge from 30 August to 31 December.
This investigation has not seen any evidence that suggests the delay in issuing the decoration vouchers prevented the resident from moving into the property. It is therefore unclear why the landlord changed its position accordingly. However, it is noted there was no detriment to the resident by its decision making.
The landlord’s own evidence acknowledges that the resident was correct in taking steps to move out of the property between 31 October to 5 December 2022 while the asbestos issue was resolved. Therefore, the landlord’s decision to compensate the resident for the council tax costs incurred during that period was reasonable in all the circumstances.
Therefore, this investigation considers that the landlord has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

The resident made her first stage 1 complaint on 10 November 2022. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 December 2022, 18 days later. This was 8 days over the landlord’s target. However, this investigation acknowledges that the delay was short in duration and therefore, the detriment caused to the resident was low. The stage 2 complaint response issued by the landlord on 14 January 2023 was appropriately issued within time.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that when a resident raises a new complaint during the investigation, and the stage 1 response has been issued, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 December 2022 to report that she felt pressured into paying rent in advance. This was after the stage 1 complaint response was issued on 6 December. Instead of opening a separate stage 1 complaint the landlord provided a response in its stage 2 complaint response of 14 January 2023. This was a failure that meant the resident did not benefit from a 2 stage internal process for that complaint.
The Code says that a landlord must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stage of the complaints procedure. Reasons for declining to escalate a complaint must be clearly set out in a landlord’s complaints policy and must be the same as the reasons for not accepting a complaint.
The landlord provided a response to the resident’s second stage 1 complaint on 17 October 2023. On 23 October the resident emailed the landlord to ask to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process. The landlord replied on 8 November to decline the request. It advised the resident that her complaint should be raised with the local authority because they administer council tax. It also reiterated that the tenancy start date was correct and could not be changed. On 8 November 2023 the resident questioned the landlord’s decision and requested that the matter be escalated to senior officers.
The landlord’s reasons for not accepting the complaint were that it did not consider that the outcomes set out in its stage 1 complaint response would change at stage 2. This does not comply with the reasons set out in its complaints policy. It was also unreasonable of the landlord to pre-empt the outcome of a possible independent stage 2 complaint review in its email of 8 November. Therefore, the landlords initial decision to not escalate the complaint to stage 2 complaint was inappropriate. Furthermore, it caused distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident because she had to pursue her request.
The landlord put things right for the resident by providing a stage 2 complaint response on 19 December 2023. However, it did not address its initial decision to not escalate the complaint which was unreasonable. It would have been appropriate to apologise for the earlier failure and, in the interests of transparency and openness, explain why it had changed its decision.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolutions are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. Offering financial redress is a means of putting things right for a resident. To be fair to the resident the landlord should clearly set out how much compensation it is offering and for which aspect of the complaint. Furthermore, the Code says that landlords must communicate in clear, plain, language.
The landlord’s handling of compensation was confusing and at times contradictory. It did not clearly explain what the compensation was for and changed its position at various stages of the complaints process.
The complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. This is because it failed to open a new stage 1 complaint regarding the rent in advance payment, initially failed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 and did not clearly explain its offer of compensation. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its request for rent in advance of a property viewing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for decoration vouchers.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an issue with the flooring.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to the resident’s request for redress of council tax which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to repair shelving.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £1533.70 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £100 for the distress caused by the failures in the landlord’s request for rent in advance of a property viewing.
  2. £100 for the distress caused by the failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for decoration vouchers.
  3. £533.70 for the loss of amenity due to the removal of the asbestos-containing floor tiles. The landlord may deduct the £400 it has offered if this has already been paid.
  4. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an issue with the flooring.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in the case.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should:
1. Review the failings identified by this investigation and identify what it would do differently. It should provide a copy of the outcome to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.
2. Review its compensation policy against the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The outcome of the review should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.
Within 8 weeks of the determination the landlord should arrange for relevant staff involved in the complaint to attend an asbestos awareness course, which includes risk assessments and communication with residents. The date and details of the course should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 8 weeks.

Recommendation

The landlord should reoffer the redress of £400 for council tax if this has not already been paid.