Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202112438)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112438

Notting Hill Genesis

21 June 2023

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about issues predating his tenancy.
2. Handling of various repairs between mid-February and late November 2021.
3. Handling of related decants.
4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the successor to his late father’s tenancy, which began in 1985. He applied for succession following his father’s death in February 2021. Before he died, the resident’s dad raised a disrepair claim relating to damp at the property. The property is a self-contained, one-bedroom flat in the basement of a converted townhouse. The resident is autistic and has vulnerabilities relating to his physical and mental health. They include limited mobility in his right arm.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. Its relevant complaints policy, effective July 2021, shows it aimed to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aimed to respond with 20 working days. The policy said, to allow a full investigation, a complaint should have been made within a reasonable period. This was typically within 6 months of an issue occurring. Further, reviews would be carried out by a manager that was not involved in the original decision.

Summary of events

The Ombudsman has seen the property’s tenancy notes from late 2004 onwards. They show no records were created in relation to the period between August 2017 and August 2019. This indicates there was no interaction between the property’s occupants and the landlord during this time. Subsequent notes, from October and November 2019 respectively, show the resident requested an inspection on his father’s behalf. However, they said, the landlord was unable to gain access and the resident’s dad advised he was unaware of any repair issues.
The notes contain an email from the resident dated 14 November 2019. It said the property was unsuitable for his elderly, disabled father. Further, the resident was no longer open to an “amicable solution”. It also said the landlord should add the resident to the tenancy agreement. However, it should not contact him directly because a legal firm had been instructed.
The Ombudsman has seen a related letter of claim from December 2019. It said several of the property’s rooms were damp and, despite having been notified of the problem repeatedly from November 2017, the landlord had failed to complete effective repairs. As a result, it said, the landlord was in breach of its repair obligations.
In January 2020 a specialist disrepair surveyor inspected the property. The corresponding survey report shows the landlord’s surveyor was also in attendance. It said the specialist was instructed to investigate reports of penetrating damp in the hallway, lounge, kitchen, bedroom and bathroom. The specialist noted “The property (was) considered to be in a good overall state of structural and cosmetic repair…”. Nevertheless, a number of repairs were identified. The main points were:
1. Elevated moisture readings were confirmed on several walls in the lounge. This was consistent with penetrating damp. Moisture was visible on the wall near a bay window. Dampness to the lounge was attributed to an external partition wall. Staining was also observed re-emerging to previous plaster repairs on the bedroom ceiling.
2. Elevated moisture readings were also taken from partition walls in the bedroom, and hallway. Given the lack of visible dampness, the specialist felt they were related to previous rising damp issues. In the bathroom, a defective toilet flush mechanism was identified. No defects were observed in the kitchen.
3. A list of repair works was recommended. The specialist felt the repairs should not take more than two weeks. Further, providing noise and dust were mitigated, alternative accommodation would not be required to facilitate them. Altogether, the repairs were estimated to cost around £2,150.
In an email on 27 July 2020, the family’s legal representative told the resident the claim was in a “very difficult position”. This was on the basis the landlord’s records showed it was alerted to repair concerns in September 2019. However, the initial notification was vague and no specific problems were referenced. The representative said the resident should provide all evidence to show he reported issues on his dad’s behalf. The resident’s later correspondence shows his relationship with the legal representative ultimately broke down.
Limited information was seen in relation to the interim period. However, on 11 February 2021, the landlord said it was in the process of sourcing alternative accommodation so the repairs could proceed. The information seen suggests, sadly, the resident’s dad died around 2 days later.
On 1 March 2021 the resident notified the landlord his father had died. He said he had been living at the property as a carer from 2019, and he wanted to succeed the tenancy. Further, the agreed works could proceed. This comment was understood to refer to the specialist’s recommended works.
On 24 March 2021 solicitors representing the both parties in the disrepair claim exchanged emails. The exchange was prompted by the landlord’s solicitor, which asked its counterpart to confirm if its client had passed away. The other solicitor replied promptly. It said it no longer held instructions in relation to the matter. Further, it had closed its file the previous month and it was not aware its client had died.
From the parties’ correspondence in late April 2021, a leak prompted the landlord to decant the resident to a hotel for 7 days. The landlord said it would pay the resident £25 per day for food during this period. Further, it would arrange help to move his belongings. It also said the resident would be decanted again while it completed the recommended disrepair works. Once complete, he could chose to return home or stay in the decant property. During another email, the landlord said it paid the resident £175 on 27 April 2021.
In an email on 30 April 2021, the resident said he had arranged his own contractor to secure the property. This was on the basis he needed to protect the belongings he had left. In addition, the landlord knew the property’s “unsafe” gate and front door could be accessed easily. His email included an image of a metal gate secured with a thick chain. He said, because he was struggling with his medical conditions, his own contractor would return to help him pack his belongings.
The landlord replied the same day. It said its own contractor would disconnect/reconnect the resident’s appliances and physically pack his belongings. In addition, a repair had been scheduled to the damaged ceiling. This would allow the resident to promptly return home. The resident responded extensive works were needed, and this was the eighth leak that had occurred. He said additional leaks were likely until the landlord resolved issues with a neighbour above. Further, conditions upstairs were “appalling”.
The landlord’s correspondence shows the following events occurred between 5 and 11 May 2021:
1. The landlord emailed the resident a video link showing its proposed decant accommodation. It said he should confirm whether the decant property was suitable. It also said its contactor would help him move.
2. The resident replied the following day. He said the decant property was suitable but it was not a like-for-like replacement. As a result, he intended to return home following the works.
3. The landlord issued written confirmation of the resident’s succession. Its letter said the landlord had amended its records to reflect a succession date of 15 February 2021.
During emails on 7 and 8 June 2021, the resident told the landlord he was “at the end of his tether”. This was because he had “a damp mouldy bedroom and no furnishings”. He said this was due to the landlord’s negligence over many years. The Ombudsman has seen undated footage of the property’s bedroom. It appears to have been recorded around this time. It suggests the resident found a significant amount of mould on the bedroom wall after moving furniture. His later correspondence indicates the furniture was moved to facilitate the repairs. The resident’s key points were:
1. The decant was due to take place within days. However, an occupancy agreement was outstanding and clarification was needed around rent and utilities. The landlord should also inspect the property given the condition of the kitchen and bathroom. Additionally, a drain was blocked and waste water was draining onto the patio.
2. The landlord should replace the resident’s bed, carpet and fitted wardrobes. The resident had disposed of these items and he could not afford to replace them. They were damaged by damp and mould over a 24 month period. In total, the resident had bought 3 beds due to related damage.
3. The resident’s video footage of mouldy walls behind wardrobes should support his request. He would obtain his own insurance in due course, but it was difficult to arrange cover while there were still repair issues at the property.
Over 2 emails on 11 June 2021, the landlord gave the resident detailed information about his upcoming decant. The emails were sent before and after the landlord issued a temporary licence agreement. The information provided was broadly similar, but the post-agreement correspondence was more formal. It included contact numbers and instructions. The resident’s later correspondence suggest the decant began the same day. The key points from the landlord’s correspondence were:
1. The resident was responsible for paying council tax and other utilities during the decant. However, the landlord would refund the difference if the decant property’s council tax was more expensive. It would also reimburse the resident for redirecting his mail.
2. The landlord would pay the property’s bills whilst major works were carried out. Its removal contractor would disconnect and reconnect the resident’s appliances.
3. The landlord’s Housing Officer was moving to a new role, but they would be available to ensure a smooth handover.
The resident emailed the landlord the next day with reference to a recent visit. He said its operations leader had failed to inspect the property. Further, it was unreasonable to assert there were no issues and no previous complaints had been made. He also said the landlord should put things right and address the damage caused by “defects” and its own “negligence”. This included reimbursing him for “hard and soft furnishing” damaged by “deluges”, damp and mould. His key points were:
1. Since the bedroom was a health hazard, it was no wonder the resident’s dad had respiratory problems. The family had reported problems in this room since around 2014.
2. The 1980’s kitchen units were crumbling and the layout was inadequate. The bathroom was dilapidated and the family’s tiles were damaged by water running underneath.
3. A chimney in the lounge was now open. The resident had disposed of its covering unit because it was damaged and mouldy at the back.
During internal correspondence on 13 June 2021, the landlord said the resident had left several personal items in the property. They included a bike, patio furniture, a mattress, linens and a bureau. It enquired whether the items needed placing in storage. In a same day email, the landlord told the resident it would do all it could to resolve the outstanding issues before he returned to the property.
Three days later, the resident emailed the landlord a bill for cooker installation. His said his cooker was safe and there was no reason for the landlord not to reconnect it. He also said fittings below the sink were loose so he arranged a contractor to fix them.
Following several internal emails on 1 July 2021, the landlord’s operations leader decided to replace the property’s kitchen and bathroom. It said a recent visit confirmed they were “very old and rickety”. The landlord initially questioned why their condition was not highlighted during the disrepair survey. It also said it could seek to recharge the resident for fireplaces apparently removed without its permission. It later said a replacement kitchen and bathroom would be installed in line with the landlord’s own specification. Further, the kitchen would comply with current design standards.
The parties exchanged emails between 2 and 9 July 2021. The key points were:
1. The resident thanked the landlord for providing a “life-changing” bed and curtains. In a separate email, he said he incurred costs while disposing of damaged items and he had given the landlord receipts.
2. Further, though it was not responsible for his neighbour’s carelessness, the landlord was responsible for poor quality installations and mould. It also failed to act in the best interests of its tenants. This was because it failed to respond to a dispute between the neighbour and his dad.
3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s frustration and expressed a desire to start afresh. Whilst it would not replace the resident’s furniture, it said he could take the bed he received at the decant property when he returned home. Further, its removal contractor could include it when they moved the resident again.
4. The resident later said the landlord should take its bed back. This was on the basis it was a waste of money and his chair was “safer”. He subsequently said he had been living in a single room since April 2021. Further, the property contained health hazards including asbestos. As a result, the landlord should consider a rent refund.
5. In another email, the resident said he was owed considerable out of pocket expenses. He also said he was living in a single room to facilitate the repairs. Additional expenses included reconnecting and sealing pipes for services. Further, the landlord failed to pay a daily allowance while the resident was in a hotel.
On 27 July 2021 the resident told the landlord he had no cooking facilities between 11 and 16 June 2021. As a result, he said, he was due £35 for each day he was without “services”. The Ombudsman has seen a supporting invoice for £65 dated 16 June 2021. It shows the resident’s contractor installed a washing machine connection and waste. Further, it connected a gas cooker and completed a gas safety check.
Two days later, the resident told the landlord he understood repairs to the property were complete. However, a surveyor should check the works to ensure they met required standards. This included external stairs leading to the property and ensuring all fire hazards were removed from external areas. He also referenced external pipes draining onto the patio and blocked drains.
Further emails were exchanged on 2 August 2021. The exchange was prompted by the resident asking when he could return home. The landlord’s new Housing Officer replied. They introduced themselves and advised they were aware the resident wanted to discuss some issues. They said they would support the resident in any way they could and the property was now ready. The resident responded with a list of outstanding issues. His key points were:
1. Previous complaints raised by his stepmother, her friend and his dad’s carer remained unresolved. These complaints broadly related to the property’s condition over an extended period. Numerous issues had been caused by poor repairs and careless neighbours. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s lack of responses.
2. The above issues were responsible for damage to the family’s belongings. For example, the resident had disposed of a mouldy bed, along with carpets and wardrobes damaged by damp. Personal items moved to facilitate works during his dad’s tenure had been lost.
3. The resident had incurred various costs including: securing the property during decants over 2 years; moving the internet and other services; the cost to fix a leak and “dealing” with meter readings. The landlord had failed to notify utility providers and the local authority about the decant. At the time, the resident was: unwell, faced homelessness and had just lost his dad.
4. The landlord should: explain why it felt the decant property was suitable, explain why the resident did not receive payments agreed in writing, speak to its removal contractor about damaged furniture items and conduct a review of complaints against works completed. If matters were not resolved satisfactorily, the resident would pursue his concerns through the Ombudsman, his dad’s executor and the small claims court.
The landlord’s operations leader emailed the resident the next day. They said the property, now ready, had been redecorated and a new kitchen and bathroom were installed. In addition, the landlord had received 50 emails from the resident in July about various issues. Broadly, it understood he felt the landlord contributed to his dad’s death. This was on the basis damp and mould had affected his health. Further, the family had experienced “discrimination, intimidation, neglect and stonewalling”, along with damaged belongings. They said, having now investigated, there was no evidence it had been negligent.
During an email update on 4 August 2021, the resident told the landlord he had returned to the property to receive a mattress. He reported observing a number of new issues including: fire-hazards, rubbish, mismatched paintwork and damaged bath enamel. He also said external pipes were “still taped” and there was no evidence the drains had been cleared.
During internal correspondence on 5 August 2021, the landlord’s surveyor responded to several of these issues. For example, they said they were unaware of an agreement to clear external rubbish and the area in question may not be included in the tenancy agreement. Further, the landlord had not interfered with telephone cables which were a resident responsibility. More significantly, they said: the drains had been jetted, evidence was needed to show the new bath was damaged and the mould was due to a lack of ventilation.
The landlord’s local representative responded to the resident’s concerns informally the same day. They said they had referred to several colleagues, including a legal caseworker and a surveyor, beforehand. They also expressed sympathy for the resident’s loss and offered to put him in touch with a bereavement service. The main points were:
1. The landlord was sorry the resident felt it contributed to his father’s death. It would like to think no-one in its organisation intended to cause harm. Given the severity of the resident’s claim, the landlord believed it was an inappropriate party to investigate. The resident may wish to refer to the police or seek legal advice.
2. The legal caseworker had advised the disrepair claim ended with his father’s death. The landlord could consider any issues that occurred after 15 February 2021.
3. Supplying furniture during the resident’s decant was not an admission of liability. Instead, it was standard practice to provide decanted residents with essential furniture. The resident could tell the landlord about any furniture needs and it would seek obtain the items through its hardship fund.
4. The property would be ready once the landlord had investigated the resident’s list of outstanding issues. The landlord would update him when it received further information. Given they were new to the role, the Housing Officer wanted to build a good relationship with him.
The resident replied the next day. He said he was finalising a complaint about decants. However, he felt misled about a related expense payment and the decant accommodation was below required standards. This was because a lack of flooring left “dangerous” floorboards exposed and there was “months of dust” that needed cleaning. Further, there were “no services” in the decant accommodation, which lacked privacy, and the bed provided was poor quality. He said the landlord should have resolved these issues beforehand and it had made a stressful situation worse. In addition, the landlord was aware of his health issues.
On 10 August 2021 a local MP intervened on the resident’s behalf. They expressed concern about the resident’s report his family’s complaints had been ignored over an extended period.
The landlord updated the resident by email on 16 August 2021. It said, from his recent correspondence, it was clear the resident was unhappy with its initial response. It would therefore escalate his complaint and issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The landlord updated the resident on 23 August 2021. It said it hoped he was looking forward to returning home tomorrow. Further, its removal contractor had advised his cooker lacked a key safety feature. As a result, the cooker was contrary to the tenancy agreement and would not be reconnected. The landlord said it could offer the resident a suitable cooker through its hardship fund. However, once connected, it would be the resident’s responsibility. It also said the resident should reply as soon as possible to ensure he had a cooker.
In an email on 24 August 2021, the resident told the landlord the repairs undertaken were not sufficient to resolve his concerns about leaks, social issues and the landlord’s performance. Further, he felt his concerns evidenced systemic problems with the landlord. He referenced: a culture of discrimination; intimidation and other unethical practices; ignoring complaints, including a failure to address costs/losses and complaint management issues.
The landlord updated the resident on 2 September 2021. It said, having now attended the property, it could confirm: there were no leaks, no leaks were detected when it visited the 2 flats above and the resident’s neighbours were unaware of any leaks. As a result, the resident should confirm a moving date as a matter of urgency. The resident’s same day correspondence suggests he received separate confirmation there were no leaks from the landlord’s contractor.
On 8 September 2021, the landlord notified the resident he needed to remove his personal items from the property within 14 days. Otherwise, it said, it would dispose of them after a further 7 days. In a same day email response, the resident said the landlord’s notice evidenced discrimination, prejudice and intimidation by the landlord. Further, he would not return home until the landlord confirmed all internal and external leaks had been resolved. His main points were:
1. The landlord should take every reasonable precaution to stop leaks and floods from above. The upstairs flat should be waterproofed and the landlord should take action in respect of anti-social behaviour from the neighbours.
2. The landlord had failed to respond to complaints about the resident’s decant. His concerns included: furniture damaged during the move, dangerous floors, costs and a lack of services, essential furniture and privacy.
3. Replacing the family’s quality furnishings with “substandard” and “dangerous” (given the resident’s health conditions) furniture was not acceptable. The landlord’s bed was unused and remained in its original packaging.
4. Compensation for various service failures, relating to decants, floods, leaks and mould, remained unpaid from 2019. Given the circumstances, the landlord’s notice was inappropriate and it should be withdrawn.
Screenshots the resident provided suggest the landlord completed a repair to the property’s downpipes around 21 September 2021. It is understood these pipes related to the resident’s patio concerns.
On 8 October 2021 the landlord asked the resident to provide a moving date for its contractor. It said the property had been ready for over a month and routine repairs could be completed on his return. Further, locks and a key safe had been changed in response to the resident’s previous email. It also said the resident should advise the landlord if he wanted to keep a cupboard near the door, and he could apply to stay in the decant property.
Around one week later, the landlord advised the resident it would serve a notice to quit in relation to the property. It reiterated any general repairs could be arranged on his return.
On 26 October 2021, the resident said he should be considered the landlord’s tenant from 2019. Further, he had no access to the property’s patio from this time and he had been living in a single room since April 2021. More recently, this was because the landlord’s bed was preventing him from using a small second room in his temporary accommodation. He also said he had injured his feet on the floorboards again, some of which he had repaired himself, and he had spent hours cleaning the decant property.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 11 November 2021. The landlord apologised for a complaint handling delay of around 2 months, which it attributed to factors including obtaining legal information and the volume of material to review. It said, in line with its complaints policy, complaints should be made within a reasonable period. Whilst this was considered to be around 6 months, aspects of the resident’s complaint went back much longer. As a result, these issues were out of scope. The main points were:
1. The landlord quoted legal advice around “standing”. It said the resident lacked the necessary legal standing to continue his dad’s disrepair claim. Further, any new claim could not be backdated to cover the period before he was a tenant. In general, an executor may have the necessary standing to continue a claim.
2. In this case, the deceased’s solicitor had confirmed it was no longer instructed. This meant the matter was closed. The landlord’s solicitor passed this information to the landlord on 24 March 2021. Given the resident’s lack of legal standing, the landlord could not uphold his complaint.
3. The resident had accused the landlord of wilful negligence. The landlord recognised this was a serious accusation. While this assertion was beyond the scope of its complaints process, there was no evidence in the landlord’s records to support such a claim.
4. Despite many emails claiming negligence, the landlord had not seen any evidence to support the resident’s claims. As a result, it could not uphold this portion of his claim. The landlord had previously advised the resident to obtain legal advice on such a serious matter.
5. The landlord’s records showed it paid the resident a £175 subsistence allowance on 6 May 2021. The response contained the specific payment account details. If the resident could provide a bank statement from this time, the landlord could help him track the payment.
6. The landlord did not accept providing a bed was an admission of “guilt”. It recognised decants could be distressing and disruptive. Providing furniture was a way to alleviate some pressures during a stressful time.
7. The resident had said his bed was ruined by damp. The landlord wanted to repeat its offer that he could keep the bed it provided him during the decant. If the resident accepted, it would move the bed back to the property for him. This aspect of the resident’s complaint was not upheld.
8. In relation to the complaint handling delay, the landlord wanted to offer the resident £50 in compensation. The resident should confirm his acceptance so the landlord could process the payment as soon as possible. Alternatively, he could escalate his concerns through the Ombudsman.
The resident replied on 16 November 2021. He said the following issues were outstanding: rubbish in an external area near the front door was attracting rats, water was still overflowing onto the patio, waterproofing was needed to the above flats, the bathroom and hallway required decorating post repairs and the property needed deep cleaning. He also said he was on the way to meet the landlord’s contractors.
Several emails were exchanged on 18 November 2021. The landlord told the resident it had changed the decant property’s locks. As a result, arrangements should be made to move the resident back to the property as soon as possible. The resident also thanked the landlord for installing an automated light in the bathroom. The information seen suggests the resident returned to the property around this time.
During an email two days later, the resident responded to a recent meeting with the landlord’s operations leader. He said he was advised the landlord would not create a wet room for the upstairs neighbour, or undertake drainage works to their kitchen. Further, the neighbour should contact occupational health for assistance. This was on the basis the landlord’s surveyor would not agree to the resident’s preferred works. The resident also said he had been forced to return home. He later described the situation as an “eviction”.
In a further update on 24 November 2021, the resident said a plumber had attended and no leaks were found. However, he reiterated his concerns that further incidents would “bring down” the property’s ceilings. He also said staining was visible on both sides of the wall between the bedroom and hallway and he was expecting to lose more furniture. As a result, he would move into the living area because half of the bedroom was unusable. He also said he did not receive the cooker offered in earlier emails.
The landlord later said the resident declined its offer of a cooker. Its relevant email, from February 2022, contained an attachment which the Ombudsman has not seen. The email wording suggests the attachment was the resident’s response to its cooker offer.
In an email update to the Ombudsman on 4 December 2021, the resident said there were still leaks into the kitchen and hallway from the flats above. Further, poorly fitted electrical sockets in the kitchen were defective and dangerous. In addition, there was no cooker and the landlord failed to reconnect his “services”. As a result, the resident had been unable to wash clothes since he returned home. Subsequent correspondence between the parties suggests the landlord’s contractors were incorrectly attending the decant address around this time.
The resident frequently emailed the Ombudsman throughout 2022 and 2023. During this time, he repeatedly referred to his original concerns. However he also raised multiple new issues. They included concerns around security, rent payments and foul smells. The information seen suggests the landlord identified new repairs to bedroom ceiling around August 2022. Overall, no information was seen to show the resident complained to the landlord about the above issues. The information seen suggests his situation ultimately improved after a thaw in relations with the landlord.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 24 May 2023. He said his neighbour had been responsible for a number of problems. For example, they frequently urinated on their floor causing leaks through the ceiling. Nevertheless, he said the landlord failed to accept responsibility for its role in events. Further, many issues stemmed from the poor building conversion, lack of maintenance and unsupervised contractors. It was understood the resident took a holistic view of issues and, on that basis, he felt his more recent concerns should be considered a continuation of his original complaint.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the resident had several vulnerabilities during the timeline. It is reasonable to conclude they added to a distressing situation. His correspondence confirms he has multiple concerns about the landlord’s actions. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience and loss of amenity. Unlike a court we cannot establish liability or award damages. In other words, we cannot determine whether the landlord was negligent, or whether its actions contributed to his father’s death.
The resident has referred to discrimination on several occasions. It is understood he feels his family were treated differently based on their personal characteristics. It is acknowledged these are serious allegations. Though the Ombudsman is unable to reach legal findings, we can consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities and its response to his concerns around discrimination. These matters will be considered in the relevant sections below. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue his concerns using equalities legislation.
It may also help to explain that the scope of this assessment is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because, generally, landlords need to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues accordingly, prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement. On that basis, any issues the resident raised after the landlord’s final response, dated 11 November 2021, are beyond the scope of the assessment. The resident should raise his concerns with the landlord in the first instance.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about issues predating his tenancy.

The resident has raised multiple historic concerns about the landlord. Many of these concerns predate the 2019 disrepair claim. For example, he referenced poor repairs and the landlord’s handling of historic issues with neighbours. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it was unable to consider complaints relating to matters that occurred more than 6 months before the complaint was raised. Whilst this information was consistent with its relevant complaints policy, we considered whether this approach was reasonable given the circumstances.
This is because the resident also referenced a failure to respond to complaints. For example, if it failed to respond to a complaint at the time, it would be unlikely the landlord could fairly say the same concerns were later out of scope. However, despite the resident’s assertions to the contrary, no evidence was seen to show the landlord failed to respond appropriately to any historic complaints. On that basis, no information was seen to undermine the landlord’s approach, which appeared both reasonable and in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord provided further information in relation to the disrepair claim. It said the resident lacked the necessary legal standing to pursue loss of enjoyment or breach of contract in respect of his dad’s tenancy. As a result, any new claim could only cover the period after he succeeded the tenancy. This position was based on legal advice and the landlord was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of a qualified legal specialist. Again, no contrary information was seen to undermine its approach. For example, the resident did not provide documents to confirm he was his late father’s executor.
Given the above, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point. It was noted the family’s legal representative ultimately advised the landlord it had closed its disrepair case. This was on the basis it was no longer instructed to pursue the claim. The representative’s July 2020 update to the resident was also noted. It said the claim was in a difficult position and more supporting evidence was required.

The landlord’s handling of various repairs between mid-February and late November 2021

The timeline shows the resident continued to raise a significant number of issues, across a high volume of correspondence, during the above period. It is reasonable to conclude this made it more difficult for the landlord to respond to both his repair requests and his complaints. Whilst the landlord did not reference specific repair issues in its complaint responses, the Ombudsman used its inquisitorial remit to include this topic in our investigation. That said, we have not seen enough evidence to fairly assess the landlord’s response to repairs after 24 November 2021.
The timeline also shows the landlord’s repairs were initially driven by the disrepair specialist’s independent report. This report said the property was in a good overall condition and it estimated the repair costs would be comparatively low. It was noted the report identified a repair issue, a flush mechanism, that was not linked to damp. However, it did not reference any patio, kitchen, mould or pipework issues. Nor did it reference asbestos. Given the circumstances, the report was an appropriate benchmark in relation to the landlord’s core repairs.
Though the resident later said the landlord should complete a range of works to the above flat, no information was seen to show his preferred works were based on subsequent recommendations from a relevant specialist. As a result, the evidence suggests the landlord’s decision to decline his request, for seemingly extensive additional repairs, was reasonable. Nevertheless, the timeline shows the landlord was broadly responsive to the resident’s other reported issues. For example, it installed a new kitchen and bathroom whilst the resident was decanted.
The timeline indicates the landlord jetted drains and completed downpipe repairs prior to the resident’s return. It also suggests the landlord sent contractors to investigate further reports of leaks on 24 September and 24 November 2021. This was before and after the resident’s return to the property. The information seen suggests the former investigation included the flats above. It also indicates damage may have subsequently reoccurred due to the neighbour’s actions.
Overall, this assessment was unable to point to any significant failures in respect of this complaint issue. For example, no information was seen to show the resident’s enjoyment of the property was significantly reduced because the landlord failed to respond appropriately to reported repairs. In other words, there was no clear evidence to support his request for a rent refund, or to support an alternative compensation award. As a result, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of this issue.
That said, the evidence does point to potential failures after 24 November 2021. For example, the timeline indicates there were electrical issues and other issues associated with the kitchen installation. Further, the landlord’s contractors were incorrectly attending the wrong address around the same time. As mentioned above, the resident should raise any related concerns with the landlord in the first instance.

The landlord’s handling of related decants

In relation to the initial decant, the timeline suggests the landlord paid the resident £175 for food expenses, as agreed, on 27 April 2021. This is because its stage two response quoted the resident’s sort code and account number. No information was seen to show the resident raised any subsequent concerns that this payment was either missing or late.
With regards to the second decant, it was noted the disrepair specialist said the works could likely be completed with the resident in situ. Nevertheless, there was no evidence to suggest the landlord disputed the need for a decant. The timeline suggests it shared a video of a proposed decant property in advance and the resident agreed its proposal was suitable for a temporary stay. Aside from the resident’s related comments, no information was seen to show the decant property was either unsafe or left in an insanitary condition.
The landlord’s 11 June 2021 correspondence, containing relevant information and instructions, was both clear and appropriate. It confirmed the landlord was not responsible for notifying providers or paying utility bills. The landlord arranged a contractor to pack the resident’s belongings. It also gave him the option of staying permanently in the decant property. It later supplied the resident with curtains and a bed. Its informal stage 1 response signposted the resident to a bereavement support service and advised he should alert it to any additional furniture needs.
Further, its stage 2 response said the resident could keep the bed and the landlord would move it back to the property for him. Overall, these steps suggest the landlord was broadly mindful of the resident’s situation and vulnerabilities during the timeline. Nevertheless, its stage one response said it was standard practice to provide residents with essential furniture during decants. On that basis, the landlord should have reasonably offered the resident a replacement cooker when the second decant began on 11 June 2021.
The timeline suggests the resident lacked cooking and washing facilities for 6 days until 16 June 2021. It is reasonable to conclude he incurred food and laundry expenses during this time, in addition to avoidable distress and inconvenience. Overall, it was inappropriate to leave the resident without these essential facilities. The landlord had previously confirmed it would connect the resident’s appliances. The timeline indicates the situation arose because the landlord’s removal contractor was slow to report the connection issues.
Given the above, the landlord should have: approved the resident’s reasonable request for £35 per day over 6 days (including laundry expenses), covered his associated £65 connection costs and awarded proportionate compensation for distress and inconvenience. Nevertheless, the timeline suggests it failed to take any remedial action when it became aware of the situation in late August 2021. This represents maladministration by the landlord and the Ombudsman will award proportionate compensation to put things right based on the information seen.
The timeline points to similar issues on the resident’s return to the property. However, the issue occurred after the landlord issued its stage two response and it was unclear whether the resident raised a new complaint with the landlord. From the information seen, we were unable to determine when the resident’s appliances were eventually reinstated. The landlord is encouraged to investigate the matter through its own internal complaints process.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline points to significant issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, it suggests the landlord failed to respond fully to a number of issues with considerable importance to the resident. For instance, the resident repeatedly referred to damaged belongings and costs incurred during the timeline. He also referenced ongoing issues with his neighbours. The timeline indicates these issues may have contributed to further leaks following the landlord’s repairs. Nevertheless, the landlord failed to address these important issues directly.
As a result, based on the timing of this assessment, the information seen suggests some of the resident’s concerns remain unresolved around 2 years later. This was unfair, inappropriate and contrary to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint handling Code (the Code) as published in July 2020. Section 3.14 of the Code said, “Landlord’s shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions…”. The timeline confirms these issues should have been reasonably clear despite the volume of correspondence from the resident.
In general, we expect landlords to refer damage claims, where a resident feels personal belongings were damaged due to a landlord’s actions, to their insurer for investigation. Alternatively, landlords can conduct their own inspection to assess the reported damages. Either way, the resident’s concerns should be addressed. In this case, it was inappropriate not to address the resident’s concerns directly. If the landlord felt it was not responsible, it should have said so. Given the time that’s passed, it may now have difficulty completing an appropriate investigation. The information seen suggests the resident continued to report new damaged items into 2022.
The timeline also suggests a tendency towards informal complaint handling and procedural issues. The landlord should be mindful that informal complaint handling is often an inappropriate means to resolve complaints involving multiple or serious issues. Further, it can often aggravate a complaint in situations where it is perceived as a barrier to accessing a landlord’s formal complaints process. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord can improve its overall complaint handling by skipping its informal stage when responding to complex cases.
In this case, given the nature of the resident’s concerns, they were arguably better suited to a formal complaint investigation from an early stage of the timeline. This may have helped the landlord to clarify and monitor key issues, in addition to increasing the resident’s confidence in its complaints process. For example, during a brief email on 3 August 2021, the landlord’s operations leader told the resident they had now investigated his core concerns. Further, they found no supporting evidence in relation to his allegations around discrimination, and neglect.
Two days later, the landlord issued a seemingly contradictory response. It said the landlord believed it was an inappropriate party to investigate such serious concerns. For clarity, although we cannot reach legal findings, the Ombudsman expects landlords to investigate allegations of discrimination through their internal complaints procedure. In this case the landlord appears to have conformed to these expectations at stages 1 and 2. However, the evidence suggests the landlord’s same operations leader issued its stage 2 response on 11 November 2021.
This was both inappropriate and contrary to the landlord’s complaints procedure. Given the nature of the resident’s allegations, we considered the landlord’s evidence file carefully with his relevant concerns in mind. However, no information was seen to indicate the resident, or his family, were treated differently based on their personal characteristics. Nevertheless, overall, the above information confirms there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. Again, the Ombudsman’s orders will put things right for the resident based on the information seen.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of related decants.
3. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about issues predating his tenancy.
4. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to various repairs between mid-February and late November 2021.

Reasons

The landlord failed to address key complaint issues. The evidence suggests some of them remain unresolved around 2 years later. This was unfair, inappropriate and contrary to the Code. The landlord also displayed a tendency towards informal complaint handling and it failed to comply with procedural fairness requirements from its own complaints policy.
The landlord confirmed it would connect the resident’s appliances and provide essential furniture during the decant. Nevertheless, it left the resident without cooking or washing facilities for 6 days, between 11 and 16 June 2021, and it failed to respond to his related request for reasonable expenses. Nor did it take any remedial action when the issue later came to light.
No information was seen to show the landlord unfairly ruled historic complaint issues out of scope based on the time that had passed. Nor was any information seen to undermine the information it received from a legal specialist in relation to the family’s disrepair claim. This advice said the resident lacked the required legal standing to continue his late father’s disrepair claim.
The Ombudsman was unable to point to any significant failures in relation to the landlord’s handling of various repairs between mid-February and late November 2021. For example, no information was seen to show the resident’s enjoyment of the property was significantly reduced because the landlord failed to respond appropriately to reported repairs. As a result, there was no clear evidence to support his request for a rent refund, or an alternative compensation award.
The evidence shows the landlord left the resident without cooking or washing facilities for 6 days, between 11 and 16 June 2021, and it failed to respond to his related request for reasonable expenses. Nor did it take any remedial action when the issue later came to light.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord’s leadership to apologise to the resident for failing to address his concerns in full. The apology should recognise that the landlord failed to respond to his concerns around damaged belongings and issues with neighbours. It should also acknowledge the landlord’s tendency towards informal complaint handling and the above identified procedural fairness issue. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman a copy of the relevant letter or call transcript. The landlord could use this as an opportunity to clarify any outstanding complaint issues.
The landlord to address the following issues through its formal complaints process: the resident’s requests for other decant related expenses and his concerns about damaged items. This includes damages related to the landlord’s removal contractor. The landlord should share its new complaint reference number with the Ombudsman as well as the scope of its investigation. It is encouraged to include November 2021 appliance connection issues within the investigation scope.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £795 in compensation within four weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £210 (based on 6 days at £35 per day) for the resident’s food and laundry expenses between 11 and 16 June 2021.
2. £65 for the resident’s related appliance connection costs.
3. £120 for any related distress and inconvenience the resident was caused
4. £400 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified complaint handling failures. If it has already paid the resident the £50 it awarded at stage 2, the landlord is free to deduct this amount from the above total.
The landlord to share the report’s key findings with its relevant staff within four weeks for learning and improvement purposes. Key topics include: ensuring decanted residents have appropriate access to cooking and washing facilities, missed complaint issues, informal complaint handling and procedural fairness requirements. The landlord should share a copy of its internal communication with the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

The landlord to use formal template letters when issuing responses at stage 1.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendation within four weeks.