Lincoln City Council (202304912)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304912

Lincoln City Council

9 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the reports that she had to pay council tax on 2 properties.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report that it had her incorrect phone number.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that it had provided incorrect information.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the property when she moved in.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that it missed appointments.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme notes as follows:
1. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
As part of the complaint, the resident raised that she had to pay council tax on both her old property and her new one. She was living in her old property while she decorated the new one. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, the complaint about the council tax falls outside of the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. The resident has the option to seek legal advice on this concern.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 1 August 2022. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat in a sheltered housing scheme. The resident lives on her own.
The landlord offered the resident a new property in a sheltered housing scheme on 13 July 2022 via letter. The contents of this letter said that the weekly rent would be £72.20. The resident signed the tenancy agreement for that property on 27 July 2022, with a stated tenancy start date of 1 August 2022.
On 27 July 2022, during a visit with the landlord to inspect the property, the resident found issues with the bathroom sink and unlevel flooring. These were note on the new tenant repairs form which the resident signed on the same date.
The resident rang the landlord on 22 August 2022 to query the rent amount as the landlord had at that point given her 3 different rent amounts. The landlord confirmed the amount was £78.32.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 7 October 2022. The key points were as follows:
1. She had received a letter from the landlord saying they had been trying to contact her to offer her a property however, when she rang the landlord to query this, the phone number on file was incorrect.
2. A letter received by the resident on 13 July 2022 said the rent on the new property would be £72.20. The landlord then spoke to the resident on 14 July 2022 and said the rent would be £71.20. When she signed the tenancy agreement the rent was £78.32. The postcode on the agreement had also been incorrect. She had spoken to the landlord on 7 September 2022 to query this but had not yet received a response.
3. The property was not in the condition as highlighted in the letting standards leaflet which meant she had to pay rent on her old property and the new one while she got the new cleaned. The resident wanted to know why she had to pay rent on both properties, when it was not in a liveable condition.
4. The landlord had given incorrect information about the gas supplier when she moved in.
5. The landlord had booked various appointments for the repairs but on several occasions the operative had not turned up.
6. She had to pay council tax on both properties.
7. The landlord had provided a paint voucher which did not cover the costs she had spent, furthermore the voucher provided her with paintbrushes which she did not need.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 19 October 2022. The key points were as follows:
1. The landlord had checked its system and the resident’s phone number was correct. It could not establish where the confusion had come from.
2. Due to an admin error, the landlord had advertised the property with an old figure. Then due to a typographical error, the letter sent also had the incorrect amount written on it. When the resident signed the tenancy agreement, the landlord quoted the correct figure. The landlord apologised for the multiple errors.
3. It confirmed the resident was liable for both rents until the date that the keys for the old property were handed back in.
4. The landlord had checked its record and could not see that the resident had raised any issues with the condition of the property that would have prevented her from moving in.
5. When a property was empty, the landlord arranged for an energy supplier to take over the supply of gas and electric. To the landlord’s best knowledge, it the energy supplier had switched; however, it appeared that another energy supplier had rejected that request but not informed the landlord. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience.
6. It confirmed it provided a decorating voucher as a gesture of good will and the amount was based on the contractors estimate of how much paint and material a resident would need to decorate a 1 bedroom flat. It confirmed the landlord could not amend the contents of the pack.
7. It accepted there had been failings in its repair appointment process. It apologised for its poor communication. The landlord said it would review its process going forward.
On 22 October 2022, the resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She contacted them on again on 5 November 2022 as she had not received a response.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 28 December 2022. The key points were as follows:
1. It had apologised for the rent confusion but said that when the resident signed for the property the landlord gave the correct figure and the resident had agreed to it.
2. It had reviewed the actions over the energy supplier and confirmed it had taken all steps to ensure that the supply had switched correctly to the best of its knowledge.
3. The resident had accepted the decorating voucher and the landlord had provided it in line with the size of the resident’s property.
4. It had requested an update on the outstanding repairs.
5. It offered compensation of £100.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s letting standard leaflet states that the landlord will ensure a resident’s property will be clean and functional prior to the resident’s arrival. The landlord would discuss any repairs needed with the resident. It says the kitchen will be clean and in good condition.

Incorrect phone number

The resident said she had received a letter from the landlord saying that they had been trying to contact her about a new property but had been unsuccessful. Upon contacting the landlord, the resident discovered the landlord had the incorrect phone number on file. Evidence has not been provided to highlight where the incorrect phone number came from, however, landlords need to ensure their records are accurate. Not doing so caused distress to the resident as she thought she might miss out on the property being offered.
In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed it could not establish where the incorrect phone number had come from, however it had checked its system and the phone number on record was correct. It was appropriate of the landlord to investigate the issue and confirm with the resident that the phone number that it had noted on the system was correct.
While it is not best practise to have the incorrect information stored about a resident on the system, the landlord appropriately investigated the issue and corrected its system to ensure all contact details were up to date. It had appropriately written to the resident to ensure it made contact with her and therefore the delay caused was minimal.
Taking into account the above, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that it held her incorrect phone number.

Misinformation

The property offer letter sent to the resident for the new property showed the weekly rent to be £72.20. It was reasonable of the resident to rely on this information as correct given that it was an official letter from the landlord.
It is undisputed that the amount quoted was incorrect. A landlord must ensure that any information given to residents, especially about financial matters, is correct. Not doing so caused confusion for the resident, particularly since the landlord had quoted a different amount the previous day. The landlord needs to ensure it has effective systems in place to proofread and verify any information sent to residents to ensure accuracy from the outset. Not doing caused confusion to the resident who had to re-budget based on the new amount.
The resident attended a signup visit for the new property on 27 July 2022. That tenancy agreement showed the rent to be £78.32. While it is not appropriate that the landlord gave the incorrect figure initially, the resident had a responsibility to ensure she read the tenancy agreement in full prior to signing it. Given that she signed the agreement, it is reasonable to assume that she therefore agreed to the new higher amount.
The evidence provided shows that the resident’s mother contacted the landlord on 22 August 2022, on her behalf to query the rent amount. The landlord confirmed over the phone that the weekly amount was £78.32. While it is not appropriate that the landlord gave conflicting amounts, by this date the resident had signed the tenancy agreement with the correct amount on and had been paying the weekly amount.
Following the resident moving into the property, the landlord told the resident of the name of the current energy supplier. It came to light that this information was incorrect. Not giving the resident, the correct information from the outset caused her to spend time contacting the wrong supplier and then chasing the landlord to ascertain the correct supplier. This would have been frustrating for the resident and caused unnecessary confusion.
In its complaint response, the landlord provided the resident with an explanation as to why the issue had occurred. The landlord confirmed it had taken all the steps it should have done to ensure that while the property was empty, the correct energy supplier had taken over the property. While it caused unnecessary confusion for the resident, the landlord was entitled to assume that its process had worked, and it cannot be held accountable for a third party not informing them the supplier had rejected the request to switch. However, it would have been helpful if the landlord had checked its process had worked and sought confirmation from the supplier before advising the resident who the supplier was. However, it is important to note that the landlord appropriately apologised to the resident for the inconvenience it had caused,
Overall, the landlord provided misinformation to the resident on many occasions which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. It gave the incorrect rent amount 3 times, which caused confusion to the resident. It then failed to seek clarification that its request to switch supplier had worked and therefore, gave incorrect information in relation to the energy supplier. This caused the resident to spend time trying to find out who the correct supplier was. In relation to the incorrect rent, the difference in the rent amounts was minimal and was swifty corrected by the landlord prior to the resident signing the tenancy agreement. The landlord did also investigate the gas supply issue and apologised to the resident for the inconvenience caused. However, the landlord’s consistent approach to give misinformation to the resident caused the resident to spend time trying to find the correct information. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that it gave her incorrect information.
A compensation order has therefore been made for £50 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Property condition – lettable standards/paint voucher

It is important to note that, following the complaint, the resident mentioned during a conversation that her issue with the decorating voucher was that she was unable to decorate herself. Consequently, she had to spend £600 to hire a professional for the task. This was the reason behind her complaint about the voucher’s insufficiency and her questioning of the landlord’s provision of a paintbrush. However, the resident did not include this information in her formal complaint to the landlord or raise this during the complaint process. The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction allows consideration of issues that have gone through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure; therefore, the Ombudsman cannot consider this information in the investigation.
In the resident’s formal complaint, she raised that the property was not in a liveable condition as there was a blocked sink, the front door was sticking, and the kitchen was unclean. The evidence shows the resident had raised this issue with the blocked sink prior to moving in. Furthermore, the resident signed a document agreeing that the works needed to the sink and an unlevel floor, would be undertaken after she moved in. The landlord had appropriately managed the resident’s expectations in relation to that issue that it would resolve the issue later.
In the resident’s complaint, she raised that when she moved into the property the kitchen was unclean due to grease in the cupboards. This is not in line with the landlord’s claim to the resident that the kitchen would be clean prior to moving into the property. A landlord needs to ensure that its properties are up to the standard they claim it would be.
There is no evidence showing that the resident mentioned the concern with the kitchen during the sign-up visit or communicated the issue to the landlord after moving in. As a result, even though it is unacceptable for the property to fall short of the standards promised in the landlord’s policy, the landlord remained unaware until the resident lodged a formal complaint. This delay prevented the landlord from providing feedback or addressing the resident’s concerns promptly.
However, the resident did report the sticking front door after she moved in. Appropriately, the landlord raised a repair, and resolved the issue. The Ombudsman understands that a landlord cannot find all issues prior to a resident moving in. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take swift action, in line with its repairs policy, to resolve the issue, which the landlord did in this case.
In her official complaint, the resident mentioned that the decorating voucher provided by the landlord was insufficient to cover the full costs of refurbishing the flat. The resident’s occupancy agreement highlights that the resident holds responsibility for the interior decoration of her home. The landlord explained in its complaint response that it offered the voucher as a goodwill gesture where they have not decorated the flat themselves. Since the resident is accountable for the interior decor, the voucher served as a suitable act of goodwill.
Furthermore, the landlord said that the amount given was in line with an amount considered enough by its contractor. The landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of qualified professional decorators and therefore, the amount given was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident also said that the voucher was for set items which she did not need. The landlord said that it could not change the items provided through the voucher as it was a set pack as suggested by their contractor. The landlord is entitled to rely on its qualified contractor to advise in the standard items needed for decoration.
The resident’s complaint highlighted issues with a blocked sink, a sticking front door, and an unclean kitchen, which contradicted the landlord’s assurances. However, the evidence shows the resident knew of the sink issue and agreed for the landlord to complete that repair after moving in. However, the unclean kitchen was not in line with the landlord’s letting standards. However, the resident did not raise this issue at the point at which she found it and therefore the landlord did not have the opportunity to resolve the issue when it was found. Additionally, the resident raised the issue that the decorating voucher was insufficient. However, the voucher was given as a gesture of goodwill to the resident, and it confirmed the amount given was considered sufficient in line with the opinion of its qualified contractors.
Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about the condition of the property when she moved in.

Repair appointments.

The resident had outstanding repairs needed to the property after she moved in. The landlord has not provided evidence of the dates of these appointments. The landlord had booked the first appointment for between 8am and 12pm. However, no one attended, and no one informed the resident. The landlord needs to ensure that where its contractors cannot attend appointments, it communicates this to the resident at the earliest opportunity. Not doing so, caused the resident to wait in unnecessarily.
A landlord booked a further appointment for another date with a time slot of between 8am and 12pm. However, on the day the contractor called to say they were on another job and would therefore be an hour late. This formed part of the resident’s complaint. Where an earlier job has overrun, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord communicate such a delay to the resident. The landlord did this in this instance and therefore, while it is inconvenient, the landlord managed the expectations of the resident appropriately.
The resident then needed further appointments as her front door was sticking when trying to close it. The landlord booked 2 appointments which it then did not attend and did not inform the resident of this. The landlord needs to ensure where this occurs, it communicates any cancellations to a resident. Not communicating a cancellation to the resident caused her to spend time chasing the landlord for an update but also meant she had to wait in unnecessarily.
Due to the delay in fixing the issue, the resident found that her door would then not lock, and she had to raise an out of hours appointment. The landlord, in this instance, appropriately attended out of hours to fix the issue. However, it is not reasonable that the landlord only fixed the issue when it then became an emergency. The landlord however did accept that there had been failings in its repair appointment service and appropriately apologised for the poor communication experienced.
The resident had to spend a lot of time both waiting for contractors, who then did not attend, but also on the phone chasing the landlord to find out if a contractor would be attending and to rebook the appointments. Landlords are ultimately responsible for any services delivered by contractors on their behalf. While it did accept its failings and apologise to the resident, it is not enough to avoid an adverse finding in this case.
Taking into account the above, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of missed appointments.
A compensation order has been made for £160, made up of the following:
1. £60 for the missed appointments, made of £20 for each one.
2. £100 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, the complaint about the requirement for the resident to pay 2 lots of council tax is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that it held her incorrect phone number.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that it gave her incorrect information.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about the condition of the property when she moved in.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of missed appointments.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £210, made up of the following:
1. £50 for the misinformation given.
2. £160 for the missed appointments.
The above amount is to be paid to the resident less any amount previously paid in this case.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.