Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Kirklees Council (202323479)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323479

Kirklees Council

8 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of major works to the property and the resident’s associated decant.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy was assigned to her by mutual exchange effective 13 March 2017. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The resident lives there with young daughter who is autistic.
  2. In January 2023, the landlord decided to temporarily decant the resident so that it could carry out major repairs to the ground floor of the property. The repairs were needed to address rising damp, condensation and mould. On 6 June 2023, the landlord decanted the resident into another of its properties.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 16 August 2023. She expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord told her it would only decant her for ‘6 to 8 weeks’ but had not even started works to the property. She said living in the decant property for so long was causing her financial strain, affecting her mental health and impacting her daughter.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 7 September 2023. It apologised for the delay in beginning the works and the impact of this on the resident and her family. It explained that the delay was due to its ‘damp contract’ expiring, but it was obtaining quotes from contractors and hoped to appoint one by 1 September 2023. The landlord said it would keep in regular contact with the resident to provide updates.
  5. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 16 October 2023. She complained that 19 weeks had now passed since the landlord had decanted her and it had still not begun works. She said that the landlord had not been keeping her updated and she was having to drive her daughter a long distance to school each day.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 1 December 2023. It said that work was now underway in the property, and it expected her to move back in on 19 December 2023. It apologised for the length of time the decant had lasted and for failing to keep her appropriately updated on progress of the works. The landlord said that it was arranging to reimburse the resident for the increased travel costs in taking her daughter to school. It said it would also pay her a ‘decoration grant’ and ‘disturbance allowance’ and would be arranging to install replacement flooring to the ground floor of the property as a goodwill gesture.
  7. On 13 December 2023, the landlord confirmed that it would be paying the resident a total of £690. The resident returned to the property on 19 December 2023.
  8. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint on 2 January 2024. She expressed dissatisfaction with the level of compensation offered by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. This investigation concerns the landlord’s complaints process which ended with its stage 2 complaint response on 1 December 2023. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident raised later complaints with the landlord. These concerned items which went missing from the property whilst she was decanted and further damp issues after she returned. If once these complaints have completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, the resident remains dissatisfied then she is able to refer these to the Ombudsman for separate investigations.

Major works and decant

  1. The landlord’s records relating to the decant indicate that it expected it to last 6 to 8 weeks, as the resident cited in her complaint. Its contractor carried out the works between 7 November 2023 and 15 December 2023 – less than 6 weeks. The landlord’s initial estimate was therefore reasonable based upon the nature of the works themselves.
  2. However, it is evident there was a period of 5 months between the landlord decanting the resident and its contractor starting works. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that this was because its “damp contract had expired” and it was currently obtaining quotes from contractors for the works. It is unclear when the landlord’s damp contract expired, however it should be expected to have oversight of such things and plans in place to ensure continued service provision to residents. In this case, the landlord was aware of the works required for at least 6 months prior to the resident’s decant. This gave it sufficient time to have a suitable contractor appointed and ready to start immediately.
  3. The information provided by the landlord for this investigation contains no record of it contacting the resident between it decanting her on 6 June 2023 and her making her complaint on 16 August 2023. By this point its initial estimate of 6 to 8 weeks had already passed.
  4. This lack of communication was evident throughout the period of complaint. The resident contacted the landlord 4 times between making her complaint and receiving the stage 1 response on 7 September 2023. The landlord has only provided evidence that it replied on 1 of these occasions (its stage 1 complaint handler made repeated attempts to speak with the resident as part of their investigation but was unable to make contact). The landlord acknowledged this lack of communication in its stage 2 complaint response.
  5. It took the landlord until 30 August 2023 to obtain quotes from contractors for the works. By this time, the resident had already been decanted for almost 3 months. The landlord has not provided an explanation as to why it could not have obtained these quotes earlier.
  6. After it received the quotes, the landlord did not give “authority to proceed with the works” until 17 October 2023. Again, the landlord has failed to provide any explanation for this unreasonable delay. The landlord had told the resident on 25 August 2023 that it was “hoping works will commence in 3 weeks”. This would have raised her expectations of returning home far sooner than she eventually was able to. It also likely contributed to her escalating her complaint when works had still not started by 16 October 2023.
  7. The contractor told the landlord it would start works on 23 October 2023. The contactor then delayed this start date, due to its previous job overrunning. This was outside of the landlord’s control and not something it could reasonably have avoided.
  8. On 27 October 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to say that the contractor was ready to start work but unable to, due to the resident’s belongings being present in the ground floor areas it needed to work in. The resident met the landlord at the property on 2 November 2023 to clear these items. The contractor had inspected the property prior to providing its quote for the works. It would have been reasonable for it to have raised this issue at that time and could have avoided this further delay.
  9. On 7 November 2023, the landlord informed the resident that its contractor had begun works, which were due to finish by 8 December 2023. The works overran and were not concluded until 15 December 2023. Considering the scale of the works involved and that the estimated completion date would have been based on information from its contractor, there was no failure on the landlord’s part in this slight delay. Following completion of the works, the landlord acted swiftly to move the resident back into the property just 2 working days later.
  10. The resident’s complaint included the fact that the landlord decanting her for so long was causing her financial strain. She said that having to drive her daughter back and forth from school each day (approximately a 10 mile round trip) was costing her a significant amount in fuel. On 21 September 2023, the landlord confirmed that it would reimburse her for these costs. This was in keeping with its decant procedure which states that “any expenditure…necessarily incurred because of the need to decant will be reimbursed”.
  11. The landlord told the resident that it would pay this reimbursement once she had returned to the property. However, there is no basis for this in its policy. On at least 2 occasions during the period of complaint, the landlord helped the resident to access a food bank. Considering the obvious financial hardship the resident was experiencing, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to make payment sooner, even if it was only for an interim amount.
  12. When the landlord did make payment of the £270 fuel reimbursement, it added this to the resident’s rent account. The landlord said that the resident had agreed to this. However, the resident disputed this and there is no evidence of such an agreement. An email from the resident to the landlord indicates that her rent account was in credit prior to the landlord crediting this sum to it. It is therefore unlikely she would have agreed to this payment being credited there, especially considering the financial hardship she was experiencing.
  13. As this was a reimbursement of costs incurred by the resident it would have been appropriate for the landlord to make payment directly to her. This would have also been in keeping with the landlord’s redress policy which says that “compensation payments will be paid by bank transfer”. ‘Quantifiable loss payments’ are included as a type of compensation under this policy.
  14. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response said it would also pay the resident a “decoration grant and disturbance allowance”. This totalled £420. Whilst the landlord has not provided a breakdown of this amount, the resident has said that the landlord told her only £50 of this was a disturbance allowance.
  15. The landlord’s decant procedure says that residents who are offered “a temporary decant property will receive a one off disturbance payment… (currently £50)”. This indicates that the landlord only offered the resident its standard disturbance payment, with no consideration the unreasonable delay in her being able to return home and the effect on her and her daughter.
  16. The resident has described the upheaval from the decant as having a significant impact on her autistic daughter who had to live away from “the only home she’s ever known” for over 6 months and manage the associated change to her routine and environment. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to make an offer of compensation to reflect this distress and inconvenience.
  17. In addition to the decoration allowance, the landlord also refitted or replaced all flooring which had been taken up during the works. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy lists removing and refitting flooring to allow repairs to be undertaken as the resident’s responsibility. As such, this was a reasonable goodwill gesture by the landlord to help return the property to its original condition.
  18. In summary, the landlord has not offered a reasonable explanation for the unreasonable delays in commencing works after it decanted the resident. This led to her and her daughter experiencing unnecessary distress and inconvenience in being away from their home for such a long period. Whilst the landlord reimbursed the resident for fuel costs incurred due to the decant, it inappropriately credited this to her rent account. Its offer of compensation consisted of only its standard disturbance allowance and failed to show appropriate consideration for its failings and the distress and inconvenience they caused. The Ombudsman therefore makes a finding of maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of major works to the property and the resident’s associated decant.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £525 composed of:
      1. £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration of the major works and decant. This (combined with the £50 disturbance allowance already paid) represents £100 per month for the 5 months between it decanting the resident and beginning works.
      2. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by it inappropriately crediting reimbursement of fuel costs to her rent account.
    2. Refund the resident any remaining credit on her rent account.
    3. Apologise to the resident for the maladministration identified by this report.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service.