Rooftop Housing Association Limited (202306466)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306466

Rooftop Housing Association Limited

20 December 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 landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s report of the property condition from tenancy sign up.
2. Communication around the rent and rent in advance payment prior to tenancy sign up.
3. Visits after the tenancy started.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling associated with the resident’s request for compensation.
2. Its record keeping.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, which began on 27 June 2022. The resident lives in a two-bed end terrace bungalow with her partner. The resident has lumber spinal stenosis. She takes medication which she states causes cognitive issues including mental fatigue and tiredness. The resident’s partner has caring responsibilities for the resident. The landlord was aware of her vulnerability at the time of the complaint.
The resident states from 27 June 2022 she reported dissatisfaction with a number of issues, including the property condition (eg the kitchen and bathroom “has to be ripped out”). Thereafter, the resident complained on 30 June 2022 (complaint A) about additional matters (eg rent level and lack of landlord visits). The landlord did not progress the complaint through its formal complaints process but offered decorating vouchers and to pay for a skip.
The resident made a further complaint (complaint B) on 17 January 2023 about the matters raised in June 2022 and requested repayment of the costs she had incurred (eg kitchen and bathroom replacement) and compensation for the adverse impact on her mental and physical health she said she had experienced. Complaint B was treated as a new stage 1 by the landlord.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 1 February 2023 when it addressed the resident’s complaints. While it did not agree to reimburse her costs, it offered £500 compensation. It said it had taken steps after learning lessons from her complaint (eg creating a new role to monitor standards before letting properties).
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 8 February 2023. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 8 March 2023 making findings (eg its kitchen and bathroom renewal timetable was acceptable); offered £1052.38 compensation; and committed to conduct a policy review for decorating assistance in elderly designated properties.
The resident has informed the landlord she experienced “severe anxiety and depression”, and her physical health has been damaged due to the property condition and the remedial works she has done.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman as she wishes to be reimbursed the costs she spent on the property as well as additional compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The scope of this investigation has been limited to considering matters within 6 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint in line with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme. The resident’s initial complaint was made on 30 June 2022 and therefore, this investigation will consider matters from 30 December 2021. The investigation covers matters until 8 March 2023, when it concluded its stage 2 follow up. Relevant factors outside this period may however be referenced for contextual purposes.
While this Service is unable to consider the rent levels charged by the landlord in line with paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme operated at the time, this investigation can consider information provided by it around the rental amount prior to the tenancy agreement being signed.
The Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, if a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or, award damages. The resident has said she has experienced an adverse impact on her mental and physical health. The Service is unable to consider this aspect of the complaint. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Handling of the resident’s report of the property condition from tenancy sign up

The landlord’s housing letting standard sets out its aims that a property is clean, in good repair and “ready for you to move into”. It states when a property is empty it will carry out repair work, so it meets the standard (eg. level floors and, kitchens and bathrooms will be clean, including inside cupboards).
The repairs, maintenance and improvements policy sets out the landlord’s aim to “providing a high-quality service” and to “ensure the high quality of its homes”. With void properties, it would offer decoration vouchers to incoming residents rather than delay the re-let, but with bungalows it will exceptionally consider the personal circumstances of elderly residents and may, for example, carry out the decoration on their behalf. It also states it will improve facilities and amenities based on stock condition surveys (eg kitchens and bathrooms).
The rechargeable repairs and recoverable costs policy states the landlord is responsible for the long-term maintenance of its homes. It also sets out what it and the resident are responsible for in the home as well as setting out the life span of key components (eg kitchen lifespan is 20 years).
The decoration vouchers procedure sets how and when vouchers will be issued if a property is in a “poor decorative state”. It states when conducting the sign-up it will take and send photographs to the relevant officer for approval.
The allocations and letting policy states bungalows are prioritised for “older or disabled” residents. A stated aim of the pre-tenancy assessment is to consider a resident’s support needs. It also sets out the provision of support after a property is let including planned visits for new residents in the first year and a programme of visits for vulnerable residents.
The tenancy policy confirms with written consent, the landlord will allow residents to make changes to their homes. It also states it will carry out aids and adaptations for its disabled residents.
The landlord’s rent and service charge setting and management policy states its objective is to ensure the rent calculation is “transparent and easily understood” and in addition, affordable rent defined as a “social rent product charging up to 80% of market rent”.
Before the void inspection on 4 May 2022, the landlord was aware of serious property issues. On 28 February 2022, it was informed by an occupational therapist (for the previous resident) of the poor condition of the property (eg kitchen was ‘falling apart’ with ‘outstanding repairs’ in the bathroom). Thereafter, it agreed to visit the property and try to put both the kitchen, which was already due for renewal in 2022, and the bathroom in 2023, on the renewal list for 2022. The supplied evidence does not contain details of the proposed visit, any property defects identified, and any steps taken to place the components on the renewal list for 2022. This is concerning as it impacts the ability of this Service to assess the landlord’s actions. It is however clear that prior to the void works, the property condition was poor requiring potentially major works to remedy it.
The void inspection report of 4 May 2022 fails to set out the potential major works required for the kitchen and bathroom. The follow on void works set out routine and cosmetic works (eg refixing a bath panel and renewing the lino in the bathroom, and renewing work tops, some units, sealants, and fixing wall tiles in the kitchen). This was unsatisfactory and a missed opportunity to resolve the significant issues identified at the end of February 2022 to ensure the property was safe and in good repair in line with its letting standards particularly as it was designated for elderly and disabled residents.
The landlord failed to adequately oversee its contractor’s void works. In an internal email on 22 June 2022, it questioned the property being ‘ready to let’ based on its contractor’s report as it was “paranoid about making anything ready to let with their current performance”. Later, on the same day, it advised the property was ready to let. The supplied evidence states a visit took place on 20 June 2022 but does not confirm a visit after the report was received. While we have not been supplied with the 20 June visit notes, the inspection findings at this visit may well have led it to sign off the property as ready on 22 June 2022. However, it is noted the landlord said in an email on 1 July 2022 the property was “left in a right state” suggesting that the property was not inspected after its contractor’s report. Given its contractor’s indicated history, the landlord should have conducted a final inspection of the void works to ensure it was letting the property in line with its letting standard aims of being clean and “ready for you to move into” and its failure to do so was unsatisfactory.
The landlord accepted a missed opportunity as early as 1 July 2022 when it said the kitchen and bathroom were in an “extremely poor condition” and should have been upgraded when the property was vacant. It is noted an undated excel table for the renewal programme list identifies the resident’s property as a priority renewal. While, at this stage, it could still have proactively resolved the property issues, it stated it would let the resident fit her own kitchen and bathroom as this meant she would be saving the landlord “quite a lot of money”. Placing the repairing obligations onto the resident was not compatible with its stated values of providing “high quality” homes. The reliance on the resident to resolve an issue which it had been aware of 4 months earlier was unacceptable.
Its allocations and lettings policy allows for a decant while works are conducted, but which cannot be carried out while the resident is in occupation. The resident said in an email on 27 June 2022 that she was unable to get into the bath to use the shower due to her disability. As it had already said the major works should have been conducted while the property was vacant and given her vulnerabilities, the landlord should have considered the option of carrying out the works while moving the resident temporarily in line with its policy. The supplied evidence does not suggest this was considered by it to address the reported issues. By not doing so it acted unreasonably especially given the kitchen renewal was already scheduled to take place imminently as its renewal team had tried to contact the resident in August 2022 to start the process.
The tenancy handover form completed on 27 June 2022 at the viewing contains basic information and does not reflect the discussion the resident said she had about the property condition as set out in an email she sent later in the day. While she signed the form it is noted the landlord had already been informed, she had difficulty “reading/taking information in due to medication”. However, it is clear from internal landlord emails and the stage 1 and 2 responses that the property cleanliness was below its usual standards and the decorating voucher it issued was insufficient. It is concerning the landlord did not taken photographs at the viewing in line with its decorating voucher procedure given the need for significant decoration. The form should be a true reflection of concerns raised, discussions about potential remedial works and the support offered. This would show the residents their concerns are being taken seriously and any agreed actions will be progressed.
The evidence provided does not show the resident’s vulnerabilities were considered by the landlord. She advised it before and after the tenancy started of her vulnerabilities for which she used a walking stick (eg difficulties bending, getting into the bath to shower, walking on unlevel floors, and chronic pain). On 9 August 2022, it acknowledged internally the resident had replaced the kitchen and bathroom due to her “mobility and health requirements”.
While the resident initially said she did not require any adaptions, including at the pre-tenancy assessment on 6 May 2022, on 10 May 2022, she said she needed a high level oven due to “extreme problems with bending”. The lettings policy states the assessment would consider a resident’s support needs. The latest information provided on 10 May by the resident should have led to an exploration of her support needs with the details being fed into the potential void works. Instead, she was told by the landlord to discuss her needs and potential aids at the future viewing. It inappropriately put the onus on her of pursuing support for her own needs, which was not compliant with its policy commitments. It is of concern that the form completed at the viewing did not reflect a support needs discussion and furthermore, it has also informed this Service risk assessments or safeguarding referrals have not been carried out for the resident. The landlord unreasonably failed to comply with its policy by considering the resident’s vulnerability and proactively engaging with her support needs when getting the property ready for her occupation.
The landlord has a duty to provide a property that is “Safe, Secure, Clean, In a good repair” in line with its lettings standards. Further, it had opportunities prior to and after the tenancy start to support the resident’s needs and upgrade the property to provide a “high quality” home. The resident has described her experience as an “ordeal”. While the landlord has acknowledged failings and apologised for the cleanliness and insufficient decorating vouchers, it has failed to properly address or offer a remedy or apology proportionate to the significant impact to the resident or the failings identified by our investigation. By not taking more timely action prior to the resident’s occupancy of the property, it exposed her to an avoidably extended period of detriment. When all factors are considered, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of the property condition at tenancy sign up.

Communication around the rent and rent in advance payment prior to tenancy sign up

An undated property description supplied to this Service states:
1. Payment of a month’s rent was required in advance.
2. The rent, which was estimated at that time, would be an affordable rent and confirmed on sign up.
The pre-tenancy assessment completed on 4 May 2022 by landlord with the resident states the payment in advance was explained to her and she was given the rental figure. However, neither document sets out the final figure and the evidence supplied does not include the estimated figure initially given to the resident.
On 4 May 2022, the resident emailed the landlord about the high rent level saying she wanted to view the property before accepting it. While the email does not mention the figure, both stage 1 and 2 responses state an income form dated 6 May 2022 completed with the resident set out the final figure, which it is understood was £45 more than the estimated figure advertised. It may well be that the resident had notice of the final rent figure in early May 2022 before the viewing, but the absence of this key information is concerning as it is means this Service cannot assess precisely when and how the information was provided to her. The wider evidence supplied shows the resident had 7 weeks notice of the final figure, which was a reasonable period to decide if the rent level was acceptable giving her time to decline the property.
In June 2022, before viewing the property, the resident gave notice to her previous landlord. This meant she had to leave her previous home by mid-July 2022. It is noted when the landlord was asked by her if she should give notice in mid-May 2022, it said in an email on 17 May 2022 she should pay “another months rent” for her previous home. It correctly told her not to hand in her notice as works were still ongoing, but it would have been more appropriate to have said that she should view the property before handing in her notice.
On 24 June 2022 the landlord emailed the resident inviting her to the viewing and tenancy sign up on 27 June 2022 and in a later email, it asked for a month’s rent in advance of the sign up. Based on the supplied evidence, it is unclear why the viewing and sign up was arranged for the same day. This was unsatisfactory as it meant the resident had extremely limited time to consider if the property was suitable for her and explore other available options. Further, the evidence provided does not indicate if the landlord advised the resident of her options if she was dissatisfied with the property. It is noted the landlord said the sequence of events was “not ideal” during internal discussions at the stage 2 investigation.
By 27 June 2022, the resident had given her notice at the previous home. The stage 2 response advised that while a month’s rent was requested on sign up as there was no option but to carry out the sign up and viewing on the same day, the resident was told she could pay later by phone. There is no evidence of any such option being put to the resident, but rather an internal email on 3 March 2023 indicates this option should have been put to her “ideally”. The resident said she felt pressured to pay the rent in advance before viewing the property. It was unreasonable for the landlord to have asked her to make a payment before the viewing as it accepted it was possible to have let her pay after the viewing.
The resident did have sufficient time to consider if she should proceed following notification of the final rental figure. However, by arranging the viewing and sign up on the same day and asking for payment before the viewing itself, the landlord acted unreasonably. This would have caused the resident to feel committed to proceed with the property before viewing it. She said she felt under pressure to accept it given she had handed her notice at her previous home, which the landlord was aware of. While the landlord has said it has learnt lessons around communicating the final rent, it has not acknowledged or apologised for the failings or the detriment to the resident. Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord in its request for her to make payment prior to the tenancy sign up.

Landlord visits after the tenancy started

The landlord failed to comply with its allocation and lettings policy aim to arrange tenancy visits with its vulnerable residents after her tenancy started. This was despite the resident requesting such a meeting as early as 30 June 2022. While on 1 July 2022 the landlord stated its building inspector would visit, the supplied evidence does not indicate she received a response to her specific request for a tenancy visit, which was unacceptable. There followed numerous missed opportunities to arrange a tenancy visit (eg a call with the neighbourhood officer on 4 July 2022). A visit, in line with policy aims, would have helped the landlord build trust by giving the resident an opportunity to set out her concerns and by showing it took them seriously.
Approximately 6 months later, the resident raised the lack of tenancy visits in complaint B. Despite both the stage 1 and 2 responses identifying failures to arrange a visit (due to a system error), the landlord still failed to visit her. While it is outside the scope of this investigation, approximately 3 weeks after the stage 2 response, following an email from the resident, the supplied evidence shows an internal landlord email was sent asking if a visit had been arranged. This Service has not been provided with the reply.
While it is accepted there was a system failure impacting tenancy visits being arranged, it was unreasonable for the landlord to solely rely on this reason as the resident asked for a visit within the first week of her tenancy. However, it is also acknowledged that the landlord maintained regular contact with the resident by email and telephone. While the supplied evidence does not show when the tenancy visit took place, the resident would have felt ignored and frustrated due to her repeated requests for a visit from July 2022 to March 2023. The landlord has apologised, but it has not properly compensated the resident for an entirely avoidable failing or the detriment to her of a lack of a visit over an extended period. Taking all factors, into account, this Service finds service failure due to the lack of a visit after the resident’s tenancy started.

Complaint handling associated with the resident’s request for compensation

The landlord’s operates a two-stage complaint process with responses being issued within 10 working days at both stage 1 and stage 2. Its complaint policy states a complaint is “an expression of dissatisfaction” and a resident does not need to use the “word complaint for it to be treated as such”.
While the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint A, which was set out in her email of 30 June 2022, by apologising and saying it would come back to her about the issues (eg arranging an inspection), it failed to progress complaint A. Her email clearly stated, “we have to complain”. Its failure to acknowledge and progress her complaint was not in line with its policy and was unacceptable as the resident would have felt her concerns were being ignored.
The landlord’s complaint B outcome oversight was poor. At both stage 1 and 2 the resident was informed that a tenancy visit would be arranged. The lack of a visit was raised in the resident’s complaint escalation and while it is outside the scope of this investigation, the evidence shows it was again raised almost 3 weeks after the stage 2 outcome. This indicates ineffective complaints management by not carrying out outcomes it had committed to and which, had it done so, would have helped build trust with the resident and shown her it took her concerns seriously.
After the resident’s representative escalated the complaint to stage 2, on 14 February 2023 he raised the issue of damp. On the same day, the landlord advised it would include the damp issue in its stage 2 response. However, it failed to do so. As the damp issue was new and had not formed part of the original complaint, the landlord should either have logged the damp issue as a new complaint when it was raised on 14 February 2023 or addressed it in its stage 2 response as it stated it would do. The landlord’s inaction in terms of progressing the damp complaint at this stage and advising the resident of how it would do so is a complaint handling failure.
The landlord’s compensation procedure states it will pay compensation to a resident for “distress or inconvenience” and take into account “the specific circumstances of the affected household(s)”. It also has a guidance document, which sets out when compensation will or might be paid, and values (eg goodwill gestures with banded values based on the impact on the resident).
While the landlord offered compensation for cleaning and decorating, and a goodwill gesture of £500, this did not adequately reflect the resident’s experience. Its complaint responses declined to reimburse the resident for the kitchen and bathroom works due to an email she had sent saying she would undertake the renewal herself. This failed to take into account the resident’s “specific circumstances” which included, the resident’s vulnerabilities; the property being designated for the elderly and disabled; its acceptance of the poor property condition on sign up; and its failure to renew the kitchen and bathroom, which the evidence shows it agreed to expedite a significant time before sign up. This was unreasonable and a breach of its policy.
While the landlord has said it has learnt lessons, apologised for some failings, and offered compensation, the offer has not been proportionate to the distress caused to the resident and its failure to proactively put her in the position she would have been in had the service failure not occurred. Given the failure to progress complaint A, the lack of management of the resident’s complaint outcomes and, the landlord’s failure to offer an adequate level of compensation, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint.

Record keeping

The landlord’s record keeping indicates failings due to gaps in the evidence supplied. This meant this investigation has used information provided by the resident and references to events within the landlord’s wider correspondence. In correspondence to this Service on 2 August 2024 it said evidence requested (eg telephone contact notes) was “supplied within email threads”.
This Service asked the landlord to provide evidence in the form of, for example, all correspondence and contact notes, visit records and inspection reports. The evidence provided has omissions including, but not limited to:
1. Call records with the resident (eg 4 July 2022).
1. Contemporaneous evidence of inspections (eg building inspector visit on 20 June 2022).
2. Information around any consideration given to or the steps taken to expedite the planned kitchen and bathroom renewal prior to or around the time of the void works in 2022.
3. The contact made with the resident in August 2022 around the kitchen renewal.
4. The advertised rental figure for the property.
5. The income and expenditure form dated 6 May 2022.
This Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information finds poor record keeping is a “key contributing factor” for failures with landlord services and complaint handling stating “records should tell the full story of what happened, when, and why” with records being clear, timely, accurately recording decisions and the reasons for them.
The omissions in the supplied evidence indicate poor record keeping by the landlord as it was not able to provide all requested information. A landlord is expected to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord for poor record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of the property condition from tenancy sign up.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s communication around the rent and rent in advance payment prior to tenancy sign up.
3. Service failure for the landlord’s visits after the tenancy started.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling associated with the resident’s request for compensation.
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman investigated the landlord on a previous case and a wider order was issued on 29 August 2024 in accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. That investigation identified failings in the landlord’s practices similar to those that have featured in this investigation. Given the paragraph 54(f) orders issued, we have not made further duplicate orders. However, the landlord must ensure that any of the particular failings in this report have been adequately covered in line with its responses to the wider order.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay directly to the resident a total of £4375. This figure includes the landlord’s redress offer of £1052.38 if it has not made this payment already. The compensation comprises:
  1. £3,500 for its handling of the resident’s report of the property condition at tenancy sign up. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of distress, time and trouble, and inconvenience.
  2. £200 for its handling of communication around the rent and rent in advance payment prior to tenancy sign up. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of stress and pressure.
  3. £75 for its lack of visits after the tenancy start. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of feeling ignored, frustration, and time and trouble.
  4. £500 for its complaint handling associated with the resident’s request for compensation. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of distress, time and trouble, and inconvenience.
  5. £100 for its poor record keeping.
2. The Group Chief Executive must meet with the resident and apologise in person for the failures identified in this report and the resultant adverse impacts on the resident. The landlord’s apology should:
  1. Acknowledge the failings identified.
  2. Accept responsibility for it.
  3. Where appropriate, include assurances that the same failings should not occur again and set out what steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should undertake a senior management review of the case and present the findings to its senior leadership team and this Service within 10 weeks. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders. The review should:
1. Review its policies to ensure the coordination of information concerning a resident’s vulnerabilities at pre-tenancy stage to ensure:
  1. Risk assessments are undertaken, support needs identified, relevant referrals made, and property adaptions considered, if appropriate.
  2. Such information is relayed to the voids team, so properties are suitable and safe for vulnerable residents.
2. Completion of programmed property improvements to be coordinated with void works prior to letting and such programmed works to be considered for acceleration based on the vulnerabilities of incoming residents, if appropriate.
3. Final inspection visits of void properties after its contractors have provided a ‘ready to let’ report.
4. Viewings and sign up of tenancy to be avoided on the same day. If it is unavoidable, incoming residents should clearly informed of their rights to decline the property, as well as the significance of making the “rent in advance” payment.
5. Where resident’s have been identified as vulnerable, the landlord should consider what reasonable adjustments it can offer and where visits are requested this should be completed within an appropriate timeframe. It should further consider whether implementing a Vulnerable User Policy would allow it to clearly set out its process.
6. Undertake and complete a review of its services and practices on this case against this Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management in view of the missing evidence highlighted in this investigation, including its lack of visit records and contact notes with the resident. The report has recommendations, which if it has not done so already, it should consider incorporating into its policies for accurate record keeping.