Ocean Housing Limited (202332640)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332640

Ocean Housing Limited

11 June 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s decision to recharge the resident for work it carried out after she moved out of her home.

Background

2. The resident had a secure tenancy agreement prior to the tenancy ending in January 2022. The property is a 3–bedroom house. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on the housing records.
3. The resident told the landlord on 5 December 2021 that she would be moving out of the property. The landlord confirmed on 7 December 2021 that her tenancy would end on 2 January 2022 and it might carry out an inspection of the property before she moved out to check it was in a good state of repair and to prevent her from being charged for any work that was required. The landlord said a member of staff would be in contact if an inspection was required.
4. The landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 13 January 2022. It advised the resident on 8 February 2022 that she was liable for a number of repairs that had been carried out and sent her an invoice for £1,005.55. The resident responded on the same day and asked the landlord for proof that she owed the money. The landlord referred the case to a debt recovery agency on 21 April 2022.
5. The resident’s solicitor told the landlord on 15 November 2022 that it had not provided sufficient evidence to support its claim for damages and asked for copies of the inspection forms and the photographs that had been taken. It asked the landlord to withdraw its instructions to pursue the debt until it had the opportunity to investigate the matter further. The landlord agreed to place its debt recovery action on hold on 16 November 2022.
6. The landlord told the resident’s solicitor on 22 December 2022 that it had reviewed the recharges that had been made and confirmed it had removed the charge that had been made for the garden shed.
7. The resident made a complaint via her solicitor on 31 March 2023. They said the landlord had failed to provide documentary evidence and noted the property was not in a habitable state when the resident moved in. It asked the landlord for a signed copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement and said she had not removed any of the doors.
8. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 21 April 2023 and said:
   1. It did not have a signed copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement.
   2. It had provided the resident with written and photographic evidence confirming what work was undertaken in the property after she moved out. This included removing an unauthorised garden shed.
   3. It told the resident about the recharges on 8 February 2022. It instructed a debt recovery agency to pursue the debt on 21 April 2022 as it did not receive a response from the resident. The debt recovery agency provided the resident with a statement, photographic evidence and a copy of the invoice on 9 August 2022.
   4. It agreed not to pursue the cost of replacing 1 radiator on 15 September 2022 as a goodwill gesture. This was despite believing the rust was due to damp washing being placed on it.
   5. It had agreed to remove the recharge for the replacement of a cupboard door as a goodwill gesture.
   6. It was satisfied that it had followed its agreed process and acted appropriately. The outstanding debt stood at £763.
9. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated via her solicitor on 4 May 2023. They said the property was in an ‘‘appalling state’’ when the resident moved in and there was graffiti all over the walls. The solicitor noted the resident was not given any decorating vouchers or rent-free weeks whilst she made the property habitable. The solicitor also noted the property was in a good condition when the resident moved out and the landlord should have carried out an inspection during the notice period. Had it done so, the resident would have had the opportunity to put things right.
10. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 7 June 2023 and said:
    1. It was certain there would have been no graffiti on the walls when the property was let to the resident in 2006. The resident should have raised any concerns she had about the condition of the property at the time.
    2. It did not offer rent-free weeks or payment for decorating materials. Whilst the resident had spent money on her home, this was not relevant to the condition in which she left it.
    3. The tenancy agreement set out the resident’s responsibilities. These obligations were confirmed when she notified the landlord that she was moving out and again when it acknowledged receipt of her tenancy termination. This included noting she may be charged for any work that was identified.
    4. It did not inspect all of its properties before they became empty. This was because furniture could ‘‘hide issues that were rechargeable’’ and inspections did not guarantee that residents would remove carpets or unwanted furniture.
    5. It had reviewed the photographic evidence that was taken at the time and was satisfied the recharges were correctly raised given they were not due to fair wear and tear.
11. The resident told this Service she looked after her home and left it clean when she moved out. She said the landlord did not inspect the property prior to her moving out or raise any concerns about the condition of the house, before sending her a bill. Had it done so, the resident said she would have arranged for the repairs to be carried out.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

12. It is noted that the resident said the property was in a poor condition when she moved into the house in 2006. This Service encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
13. Taking account of the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events leading up to when the resident made a complaint in March 2023, up to June 2023, when the landlord issued its final complaint response.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

14. The copy of the standard tenancy agreement provided by the landlord confirms it is responsible for the structure of the property and it will recharge residents for any work it has to carry out and which is due to damage. The resident is responsible for keeping the interior of the property in a good condition and maintaining the garden. The resident is also required to make good any damage they cause to the fixtures and fittings, except where there is fair wear and tear.
15. The landlord’s empty property management policy says it will recharge residents for work it has to carry out which is not deemed ‘‘acceptable fair wear and tear.’’ Recharge costs are based on the cost of materials and labour, plus an administration fee of no more than 10%. Inspections are only carried out where the resident is moving to another property owned by the landlord.
16. The landlord’s recharge procedure says it will recharge residents for repairs it carries out which are not due to ‘‘normal wear and tear’’ or which are the responsibility of the resident. Damage caused by residents is considered rechargeable. The policy also says the landlord will:
    1. Inform residents of any recharges that are due, including providing photographic evidence and details on how the recharge has been calculated.
    2. Give residents 28 days to pay the bill.
    3. Refer cases to a debt recovery agency where a resident is no longer a tenant or defaults on a payment agreement.
    4. Consider wavering recharges if there are mitigating circumstances. This includes situations where the damage is deemed to be accidental rather than due to wilful damage.

The landlord’s decision to recharge the resident for work it carried out after she moved out of her home.

17. The housing records confirm the resident gave the landlord notice of her intention to terminate her tenancy on 5 December 2021. This included signing a declaration confirming that she would leave the property and garden in a clean and tidy condition and she would be recharged for any repairs that were not considered to be due to fair wear and tear.
18. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request on 7 December 2021 and noted that a property inspection might be carried out prior to her leaving. It said a member of staff would be in contact if an inspection was required. The resident was advised to remove all of her personal belongings, clear the garden and leave the property clean when she left. This provided clarity. A schedule of potential charges was included in the letter.
19. The landlord reconfirmed its position on 10 December 2021. This included reminding the resident that she was responsible for any work that was carried out in the property which was not due to fair wear and tear.
20. It is unclear from the housing records when the resident moved out. She did not move into another property owned by the landlord.
21. The landlord carried out a property inspection on 13 January 2022 and a schedule of rechargeable works was identified. This included replacing several internal doors, removing carpets, renewing a radiator and replacing the damaged bath panel. The landlord also identified the garden needed to be cleared and the garden shed disposed of. Photographic evidence was taken of the damage in accordance with the landlord’s recharge policy.
22. The landlord notified the resident of the recharges on 8 February 2022. This was consistent with the landlord’s recharge policy. It said she was liable for the recharges and noted the damage was not due to fair wear and tear. A breakdown of the charges was included with the letter and the resident was advised to pay the bill within 28 days or make arrangements to pay the debt by instalments. There is no evidence the resident responded to the landlord’s request.
23. The landlord referred the case to a debt recovery agency on 21 April 2022. This was consistent with its recharge policy.
24. The resident¶ told the landlord on 8 August 2022 that she did not owe the money and asked for proof of the damage. The landlord responded on the following day and provided details of the recharges and photographic evidence. This provided clarity. It agreed not to pursue the cost of replacing 1 radiator on 15 September 2022 as a goodwill gesture.
25. The resident’s solicitor contacted the landlord on 15 November 2022 and asked for a copy of the inspection report that was completed when she moved out. It also asked the landlord to withdraw its instructions to pursue the debt until it had the opportunity to investigate the matter further. The landlord agreed to do this on 16 November 2022. It also advised the resident’s solicitor that it did not carry out property inspections prior to a tenancy ending.
26. The landlord advised the resident’s solicitor on 22 December 2022 that it had undertaken a review of the recharges that had been made and confirmed it had removed the charges that had been made for the garden shed. It also noted the property was not left in a lettable standard and the other recharges still applied. It asked its debt recovery agency to proceed with recovery action on 13 March 2023 given it had received no response from the resident or her solicitor. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with its recharge policy.
27. The resident’s solicitor asked the landlord to withdraw its instruction to the debt recovery agency on 31 March 2023. It noted it was still waiting for a copy of the inspection report and said the resident had not removed any doors.
28. The landlord confirmed on 21 April 2023 in its stage 1 complaint response that it had followed its policy and acted appropriately. This included providing the resident with written and photographic evidence confirming what work was undertaken in the property after she moved out. It also said it instructed a debt recovery agency to pursue the debt on 21 April 2022 as it did not receive a response from her.
29. The landlord confirmed it had removed the recharge for the replacement of a cupboard door as a goodwill gesture. This was in addition to the recharges for the radiator and garden shed. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with a copy of the property inspection form as requested by her solicitor. This would have demonstrated the landlord was being transparent.
30. The resident’s solicitor told the landlord on 4 May 2023 that she left the property in a good state of repair and the landlord should have carried out an inspection prior to her leaving. It also noted the identified damage was due to fair wear and tear.
31. The landlord confirmed on 7 June 2023 in its final complaint response that it had reviewed the photographic evidence that was taken at the time and was satisfied the recharges had been correctly raised. It also noted it did not carry out property inspections prior to residents moving out given the potential of missing repairs that could be rechargeable.
32. In summary, the resident was advised to leave the property in a good state of repair prior to terminating her tenancy. She was also advised she would be recharged for any work that was carried out that was not due to fair wear and tear. The landlord carried out an inspection of the property and told the resident about the recharges in a timely manner. It also later agreed to remove a number of recharges after reviewing the photographic evidence. In this case, there was no maladministration by the landlord when deciding to recharge the resident for work it carried out after she moved out of her home.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its decision to recharge the resident for work it carried out after she moved out of her home.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations.

34. The landlord reviews its empty property management policy and the information communicated to its residents with regards to carrying out inspections