Southern Housing (202328281)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328281

Southern Housing

30 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The mutual exchange, including the condition of the property and garden.
2. The resident’s reports of repairs and pest infestation.
3. The resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
4. The resident’s reports of damp and mould, including mould damage to her possessions.
5. The resident’s concerns about the possible presence of asbestos in the property and the garden.
6. The gas and electrical safety tests following the mutual exchange.
7. The resident’s request for a bath to be installed in the wet room.
8. The associated complaints.

Background

The resident had an assured tenant with the landlord and moved to the property in April 2023 following a mutual exchange. The landlord’s records state that the resident was disabled and had various health conditions. The property is a 2-bedroom, mid-terrace bungalow. The mutual exchange reference dated 3 March 2023 from the resident’s previous landlord stated that she had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Asperger’s Syndrome and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The resident advised us on 21 February 2025 that she moved to a property owned by a different provider in October 2024.
On 3 May 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord and reported large wet patches on the bedroom wall. She also reported that the neighbouring properties had overgrown hedges, brambles and a large tree, all of which were overhanging her garden and blocking out the light. The landlord’s Surveyor inspected the property on 17 May 2023 and concluded that the patches on the bedroom wall were not caused by dampness but instead were marks on the matt paint. The Surveyor also said she had checked the water meter cupboard and found this was dry.
During May and June 2023, the resident advised the landlord that she was unhappy with the condition of the property. She reported various issues including:
1. The need to repair and modernise the kitchen.
2. Draughts through the front door.
3. The decking and lean-to at the rear were not secure.
4. The oven/hob did not have its own electric point.
5. There were large cracks in the external walls.
6. The chimney needed sweeping.
7. She said she had seen evidence of mice in the property.
The landlord’s records show that its contractor visited the property on 15 June 2023 and completed an electrical installation condition report (EICR). Its records also show that the Home Services Manager (HSM) and Surveyor visited the property on 18 July 2023 to discuss the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property.
In July 2023, the resident requested details via the landlord’s online portal of how she could make a complaint. The landlord’s records show that she wrote to the landlord on 23 August 2023 and then on 4 September 2023 and attached a complaint. The complaint reported various concerns including:
1. Visible signs of asbestos being present both internally and in the garden.
2. Rubbish left by the outgoing tenant.
3. The electrical check was not carried out immediately after she moved in and the oven/hob was not made safe until months afterwards.
4. She said she should not be responsible for non-standard fittings such as the lighting, kitchen installation or tiling in the bathroom.
5. She was not given a document showing the fittings and fixtures she was responsible for.
6. There was no gas check done immediately after she moved in on 18 April 2023.
7. The property was infested with fleas and ticks as the previous tenant had pets.
8. There were various defects, including cracks in the walls.
9. The chimney needed to be swept as soot from the chimney was causing her to have asthma attacks.
10. There were overgrown shrubs and trees in neighbouring properties that were overhanging her garden and birds were swooping from the trees onto her roof, which was triggering her PTSD.
11. She had concerns about the conduct of the Home Services Manager and the Surveyor.
12. Disrepair in the bathroom and the landlord’s response to her request to install a bath.
13. She said the landlord had failed to remove commercial waste from the garden, which she said had been left by the outgoing tenant.
After being approached by the resident, the local authority carried out an inspection on 24 August 2023 under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The local authority sent the report to the landlord in September 2023, which included various category 1 and 2 hazards.
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 7 November 2023 in which it stated that repairs had been raised to carry out various repairs and to deal with the reported pest issues. It added that some repairs were outstanding, such as repairing the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans and replacing the front door seal and the seal on the bathroom floor, however it had made appointments to complete these works. In terms of adaptations to the bathroom, the landlord said it had to ensure the work was carried out by a specialist contractor for health and safety reasons. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered compensation of £260 for the inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 November 2023 and asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She gave several reasons for this including stating:
1. The commercial waste left by the resident had not been addressed.
2. The landlord had not yet carried out an asbestos survey.
3. The shower room was unsuitable to be a wet room and she needed to have a bath installed for medical reasons.
4. The landlord had not addressed her concerns about staff conduct.
5. There was still damp and mould present and the mould had destroyed some of her belongings.
6. Overgrown brambles were encroaching on her garden from a neighbouring property.
7. the kitchen was unsanitary and the oven and hob were dangerous.
8. The flooring in the bathroom was cracked and water was seeping under the floor.
9. The chimney needed to be swept.
10. There were cracks in the walls and although the surveyor had said they were cosmetic, she felt they were more serious.
11. The flea and tick infestation had not been addressed.
12. The category 1 and 2 hazards identified by the local authority had not been addressed.
13. Birds were causing noise and mess around the property and this was not being helped by neighbours feeding the birds. She believed that the landlord should write to the neighbours and carry out proofing work to deter the birds.
The resident sent additional emails to the resident and to us during November and December 2023 to provide further details about her concerns. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 13 December 2023 in which it stated the following:
1. It had reviewed the mutual exchange report and found that the report and photographs did not show any of the issues reported by the resident. However, it accepted that it would have been difficult to inspect the property fully with the outgoing tenant’s furniture in place.
2. Under its mutual exchange policy, the resident was responsible for any making good, decorations, fittings left in the property and removal of any items left by the outgoing tenant.
3. The Building Surveyor had inspected the property after the mutual exchange and had arranged for various repairs to be completed, including replacing the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom, replacing the seal around the front door, pest control treatments and providing a dedicated power circuit for the oven/hob.
4. The pergola, shed structure, decking, waste in the garden and the brambles overhanging the garden were the resident’s responsibility.
5. The Surveyor had been liaising with the local authority regarding any outstanding repairs and understood that they had booked a re-inspection on 19 December 2023.
6. It had offered £200 compensation at stage 1, which was in line with its compensation policy, however, it could not compensate the resident for the damaged possessions a this was not in line with the policy.
7. It had investigated the Surveyor’s conduct and she had stated that the visit to the property went well and no concerns had been reported by the resident.
8. The landlord did not uphold the complaint as it said it had carried out repairs and was working with the local authority to complete any remaining repairs.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 and 14 December 2023 to say she was dissatisfied with its response. She said the landlord had not requested any evidence from her about the concerns she had raised in relation to staff conduct. She said the landlord had not addressed the category 1 and 2 hazards raised by the local authority and had not mentioned the complaint handling failures during the complaints process. She rejected the landlord’s offer of compensation and listed several reasons for her continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her concerns.
The resident contacted us on 19 December 2023 to confirm the property had just been reinspected by the local authority. The resident said that the category 1 and 2 hazards remained outstanding, the cracks in the walls had not been reinspected and there had not been an asbestos survey carried out showing the asbestos was low risk.
During January to September 2024, the resident continued to raise various concerns regarding the condition of the property. In October 2024, she arranged a further mutual exchange and moved to a property owned by a different provider.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident wrote to the landlord on various occasions and said that the condition of the property had impacted on her physical and mental health. For example, she wrote to the landlord on 19 November 2023 and said the defects in the property were causing her severe stress, mental distress, exacerbation of her attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms, worsening of breathing difficulties and other impacts. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
On 4 September 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord and referred to reasonable adjustments in connection with the bathroom. She also wrote to us on 20 May 2025 and said she had requested reasonable adjustments in relation to communications. We are unable to provide a judgement on whether the adjustments requested by the resident were ‘reasonable’ as defined in the Equality Act 2010. The term ‘reasonable adjustment’ is a legal term and is dependent on a range of factors, including what is practical and affordable for the landlord. However, we can consider whether the landlord gave due regard to the resident’s requests for adjustments to be made.
The evidence shows that the resident requested various information from the landlord and submitted a subject access request (SAR). The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) considers complaints about data handling and SARs, rather than us. Therefore, we have not investigated the resident’s request for information or the SAR she submitted.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 January 2024 and stated there was an error on the Deed of Assignment date. She said the error had rendered all the terms and conditions sent to her so far, irrelevant. The Deed of Assignment is a legally binding agreement, which the parties agreed to. We do not have the power to make a legally binding decision on the validity of the agreement or the terms and conditions linked to the agreement. If there is a dispute over the terms or the validity of the agreement, either party can apply to the court for rectification.
We have received information showing events that took place in relation to the property after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 13 December 2023. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. This means, for example, that we have not investigated the resident’s request for a management move nor her formal complaint made on 25 January 2024 about not receiving her tenancy agreement. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.
The resident has advised us about various matters that were not included in her stage 2 complaint. As stated previously a key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint. Therefore, we have not investigated some matters that were not included in the resident’s stage 2 complaint, including reports of anti-social behaviour from the road and issues relating to the behaviour of the flooring contractor.
The resident has questioned the interpretation of some aspects of the mutual exchange agreement signed by the resident on 15 March 2023. For example, she questioned whether she should be responsible for some of the non-standard items left by the previous tenant. We cannot make a binding decision on the interpretation of a contract as producing such a definitive or binding ruling would be a matter for the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option.

The landlord’s handling of the mutual exchange, including the condition of the property and garden

The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states:
1. It will schedule an inspection of the property to assess the condition and identify any repairs needed. It will rectify any major repairs or safety issues for which it is responsible and aware of prior to the exchange taking place.
2. If the outgoing tenant has made alterations without the landlord’s consent, it may ask the resident to reinstate the property to its original state.
3. The outgoing tenant must leave the property in good order, clean and clear of any belongings when they move.
4. The incoming resident accepts the condition of the property they are moving into on completion of the exchange. The landlord is not responsible for any:
  1. ‘Making good’.
  2. Decorations.
  3. Fittings that have been left in the property.
  4. Removal of items left in the property.
As the resident had arranged to carry out a mutual exchange, the landlord wrote to her resident on 22 February 2023 to set out the mutual exchange process. This was reasonable to ensure the resident was aware of the process.
The landlord inspected the property on 1 March 2023 in order to assess the condition prior to the outgoing tenant moving out. This was appropriate and in line with its Mutual Exchange Policy which states that it will schedule an inspection of the property to assess the condition and identify any repairs needed. The inspection report stated that the condition of the property was excellent and no repairs were needed. The report listed the fixtures and fittings that would remain – these were all of the floor coverings, the built-in oven and hob, 2 sheds and a rear lean-to.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 March 2023 to confirm the mutual exchange had been approved and to advise her to continue to liaise with the outgoing tenant regarding the property condition. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to keep in contact with the outgoing tenant regarding the property condition. This would enable the resident to be aware of any repair issues that needed to be raised with the landlord.
The resident signed the terms and conditions of the mutual exchange on 15 March 2023 to say she had inspected the property and was accepting it ‘as seen’. This included accepting responsibility for the decorative order, removal of rubbish and any previous damage or neglect to the fixtures and fittings by the outgoing tenant. It also said she would be responsible for any pest infestations and maintaining or making good any alterations made by the outgoing tenant. The agreement also said that the resident was accepting responsibility for the external areas, including sheds, fence panels and decking.
As the resident had signed the agreement, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider she was accepting the terms and conditions and that she had satisfied herself that the terms were reasonable.
The landlord’s records state that the landlord raised an order on 24 April 2023 for a Surveyor to inspect the property. The inspection was booked for 17 May 2023. The landlord had therefore raised the inspection order within a week of the resident moving in and the inspection was carried out about a month after she moved in. This was reasonable as the visit took place soon after the resident had moved in and therefore enabled the landlord to check the condition of the property shortly after the outgoing tenant had moved out. It was also in line with the landlord’s Mutual exchange Policy which says it will schedule a visit to inspect the condition and identify any repairs.
As part of her complaint to the landlord on 4 September 2023, the resident raised various issues relating to the condition of the property when she moved in, including:
1. No asbestos survey had been carried out in the property.
2. Rubbish had not been removed from garden and sheds. She believed that the rubbish left by the outgoing tenant was ‘commercial waste’ and therefore they should have removed it.
3. Non-standard items such as the kitchen installation, lighting and tiling.
4. The safety of the gas and electrical installations.
5. She said she had not signed to take responsibility for the adapted wet room, including the toilet and shower. She said the outgoing tenant had advised her there was a bath installed in the wet room, which was not the case.
6. The resident said there was damage in the property that had not been noted on the mutual exchange form, such as a hole in the kitchen wall with protruding bolts.
7. She said there was a flea infestation as the outgoing tenant had pets.
8. She said there were cracks in the external walls.
9. She said the outgoing tenant had made alterations, including the sheds, the lean-to and raised decking.
10. She said there were branches, brambles and hedges from neighbouring properties which were overhanging her garden and a tree that was blocking light.
11. She raised concerns about the condition of the fencing put up by the outgoing tenant.
12. She said there were pigeons roosting and swooping from the tree branches directly at her.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply dated 13 December 2023 that it had reviewed the mutual exchange report and photos and found they did not show any of the issues reported by the resident. It acknowledged that it would have been difficult to review the condition of the property fully while the previous tenant’s furniture was in place. Given that the previous resident’s furniture was still in place when the inspection was done, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that some issues with the property may not have been visible during the inspection.
The inspection was carried out by one of the landlord’s managers and he did not identify any defects requiring repairs. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of its qualified staff member.
The landlord advised the resident in its stage 2 reply that she was responsible for the removal of the pergola, the shed structures, the decking, the waste in the garden and dealing with the overhanging brambles in the neighbouring properties. Having reviewed the mutual exchange agreement form, which the resident signed on 15 March 2023, the form explicitly states that the sheds and the lean-to were to remain as part of the property. Furthermore, the form stated that the resident was assuming responsibility for any alterations made by the previous tenant. Therefore, in our view it was reasonable for the landlord to point out that the resident was now responsible for these structures.
Although the form did not mention the decking, the resident had signed the form to accept responsibility for additions by the previous tenant, such as fence panels and decking. In our view it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that they were her responsibility.
Although the form did not state that there was rubbish present in the sheds or the garden, it did state as part of its terms that the resident would be responsible for the removal of any rubbish in the property left by the outgoing tenant, including in the garden and sheds. Therefore, as the resident had signed to say she accepted the terms, again it was reasonable for the landlord to say that she was now responsible for removing any rubbish (regardless of the quantity).
The resident had signed the agreement to say she had inspected the property and was accepting responsibility for maintaining any alterations made by the previous tenant (with or without the prior knowledge of the landlord). Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to have checked the property before the exchange to ensure she was happy with the condition of the wet room and the kitchen installations. This would include checking whether a bath was present. The resident later advised the landlord that she had not inspected the property in person prior to the exchange because she was agoraphobic. However, we have not seen any evidence that the resident advised the landlord of this before the exchange and requested the landlord’s assistance to make alternative arrangements to check the property.
The resident reported issues with branches, brambles and hedges from neighbouring properties overhanging her garden and a tree that was blocking light. The mutual exchange agreement said that the resident was responsible for bringing gardens, shrubs and trees back to a maintained standard. We understand that the brambles, hedges and trees in question were overhanging the resident’s garden and were not actually situated in her garden. However, under common law, branches may be pruned from trees and hedges without the owner’s consent if they overhang a neighbouring property. This must be done, however, without trespassing on the neighbouring property.
The Government’s website states: “You can trim branches or roots that cross into your property from a neighbour’s property or a public road”. Therefore, as the resident was responsible for maintaining the garden, it was reasonable, in our view, for the landlord to advise the resident that she was responsible for trimming any overhanging brambles and other foliage.
The resident advised the landlord that a horse chestnut tree in one of the adjacent gardens was blocking light from entering her kitchen. The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 May 2023 and confirmed it did not own any of the surrounding properties. However, it agreed to write to the owner of the tree and ask for it to be cut back. The landlord confirmed it had written to the owners of neighbouring properties and asked them to prune their trees in previous years. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to ask the owners of neighbouring properties to cut back their trees.
The resident stated that she had not seen the outgoing tenant’s tenancy agreement when she carried out the mutual exchange. However, again, the resident had signed the mutual exchange agreement, which said she had read the existing tenant’s copy of the tenancy agreement. The mutual exchange was not a new tenancy but instead was an ‘assignment by way of exchange’. Therefore, as the resident would be bound by the same tenancy conditions as the previous tenant, it was incumbent on her to ensure she fully understood the tenancy conditions prior to agreeing to exchange.
The resident said she was unhappy that the landlord had not carried out an asbestos survey or testing prior to her moving into the property. We have carefully considered the resident’s views that the landlord should have carried out an asbestos survey prior to her moving to the property. However, our assessment is that it was reasonable for the landlord not to have carried out such a survey prior to the exchange because:
1. The landlord’s Mutual Exchange Policy does not place a requirement on the landlord to carry out an asbestos survey prior to a mutual exchange.
2. The landlord had inspected the property on 1 March 2023 and the report shows that during this inspection, it did not note any health and safety issues.
3. The mutual exchange agreement form says that if the incoming resident is aware of any potential safety risks prior to the exchange, they should urgently report them in case they need to be resolved before the move date. We have not seen any evidence that the resident reported concerns about asbestos prior to the move, however, we are aware that she reported concerns after moving in – these are considered later in this assessment.
4. The primary responsibility for landlords under Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 is to protect residents from any risks from work activities being carried out in their homes. Where work being done involves asbestos-containing materials (ACM), then landlords have certain duties, including a duty to prevent or reduce the spread of asbestos and the prevention/reduction of exposure to asbestos. However, the landlord had not planned to carry out any specific works that could disturb ACM prior to the resident moving to the property.
The resident reported issues with pigeons roosting on the lower branches of the large tree and swooping at her. In terms of the mutual exchange process, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord was made aware of this matter prior to the exchange. Therefore, our view is that the landlord could not have reasonably known prior to the exchange that this would be an issue for the resident.
The resident said there was damage in the property that had not been noted on the mutual exchange inspection report. Based on the evidence seen, we are unable to say whether the landlord should have noted this reported damage prior to the exchange. However, as previously stated, the landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of the manager who carried out the inspection.
Overall, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the mutual exchange, including in relation to the condition of the property and garden, because:
1. The landlord inspected the property prior to the exchange as per its policy and it did not identify any repairs or health and safety issues.
2. The landlord had written to the resident prior to the exchange and advised her to continue liaising with the outgoing tenant regarding the condition of the property.
3. In accordance with the Mutual Exchange Policy, the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property shortly after the resident moved in.
4. The resident signed a mutual exchange agreement confirming she was accepting the property ‘as seen’ which included the wet room and kitchen installations.
5. The resident was responsible for maintaining the garden and under common law was able to cut back any branches, brambles or hedges overhanging the property.
6. The mutual exchange agreement stated that the resident was accepting responsibility for maintaining any alterations and additions made by the previous tenant and for the removal of any rubbish.
7. The landlord was not required to carry out an asbestos survey because at the time of the exchange it did not have any plans to carry out works that could potentially disturb the ACM.
8. The landlord could not, in our opinion, have known about the problems with birds prior to the exchange.

The resident’s reports of repairs and pest infestation

The landlord’s Pest Management Procedure states that it will not treat infestations of fleas. However, it goes on to say that it will treat infestations of fleas where a tenant is assessed as vulnerable. The procedure states that it will not deal with pigeons and other birds and that residents must deal with these themselves or report them to the local authority.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states:
1. Residents are responsible for filling minor cracks in plaster.
2. Fixtures or fittings provided by the resident, including alterations.
3. In most cases, residents are responsible for sheds.
4. Residents are responsible for insuring the contents of their home and garden.
After moving into the property, the resident reported an infestation of fleas. However, the resident had signed the mutual exchange form to say she would be responsible for any pet damage, including pest infestations where the previous tenant had pets. The resident questioned why the floor coverings had been left from the previous tenant, however, the mutual exchange agreement stated that the floor coverings would remain and the resident signed the agreement on 15 March 2023 to accept this. We are mindful that under the landlord’s Pest Management Procedure, it could have exercised discretion and carried out the treatment as the resident was vulnerable. However, based on the agreement signed by the resident, our view is that it was not unreasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to be responsible for the reported flea infestation.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 June 2023 and said she had seen mouse droppings in the hall and evidence of rodents in the garden. The landlord therefore raised an order on 5 July 2023 and a pest control contractor carried out treatment for rodents. The treatment was completed in July 2023 (the exact date is unclear from the evidence seen). The landlord had therefore addressed the resident’s reports of rodent activity within a reasonable timescale.
In her email dated 9 June 2023, the resident said she was dissatisfied with the condition of the kitchen and said there were large external cracks in the walls and decaying soffits. The landlord’s Surveyor visited the property on 12 June 2023 to inspect the various repairs, including the reported cracks in the walls and ceilings. However, the landlord’s records state that the resident was not at home and therefore the Surveyor left a calling card. It was reasonable that the Surveyor had arranged to inspect the property as the resident had reported various repair issues.
The landlord’s records state that the Surveyor visited the property on 5 July 2023. The Surveyor’s notes stated that there were minor cracks in the property which looked to be superficial, however, it was agreed that the Surveyor would visit in a few weeks to reassess them. The Surveyor then reinspected the cracks on 18 July 2023 and advised the resident that the cracks had not changed since the previous inspection. She advised the resident that she could rake out, fill and redecorate the cracks. It was reasonable that the Surveyor had inspected the cracks and then reinspected them to ensure there was no ongoing movement. It was also reasonable that the Surveyor had given the resident advice on how she could deal with the cracks as the landlord’s responsive Repairs Policy says that residents are responsible for filling minor cracks in plaster.
The resident had raised various concerns about the condition of the windows and doors. The landlord’s Asset Management Team therefore wrote to the resident on 25 July 2023 and advised her that the windows and doors were due for replacement in 2024/25. It was reasonable that the landlord had written to the resident to provide her with information on when she could expect the windows and doors to be replaced.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 23 August 2023 in which she mentioned various outstanding repairs including:
1. The bathroom window handle had been stuck in the open position and it had taken “weeks” to repair, which impacted on the security of the property.
2. A dripping tap in the kitchen took about 2 weeks to repair.
3. The damaged shower room floor, which the resident said was reported in April 2023.
4. Cracks in the walls and ceilings.
5. Missing skirting boards.
6. Soot coming from the chimney because it had not been swept (the resident said she was initially told it would be swept).
7. A lack of window battens to enable the resident to put up curtain rails and curtains (the resident said the landlord had agreed to fit these in May 2023).
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 7 November 2023 and listed some of the repairs that had been completed. However, it acknowledged that other repairs were still outstanding, including repairs to the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans, replacing the seal around the front door and replacing the seal on the bathroom floor. It said it had appointed a contractor to oversee the outstanding work and to be the resident’s point of contact.
It was reasonable that the landlord had given clear information about the repair orders that were still outstanding and it had given target dates for the repairs. It was also reasonable that the landlord had appointed a contractor to oversee the work and to be a point of contact for the resident. However, we have noted that the landlord did not address some of the repairs listed in the resident’s stage 1 complaint, such as the time taken to repair the bathroom window handle, the request for the landlord to sweep the chimney and the lack of window battens. Of particular concern was the resident’s request for the chimney to be swept because she had advised the landlord in her stage 1 complaint that the soot from the chimney was causing her to have asthma attacks. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord had not addressed some of the resident’s specific concerns in its response.
In terms of the time it had taken to repair the bathroom window handle, the landlord’s records show it had raised an order on 24 April 2023 to repair the handle which was stuck in the open position. The job had been completed on 24 May 2023 and therefore had taken a month to repair, despite the resident’s concerns about the security risks. Given the time taken by the landlord to repair the handle, we would expect the landlord to have responded to the resident’s concerns in its complaint reply.
At the time of the landlord’s stage 2 reply on 13 December 2023, the landlord reported it had completed the repairs/replacement of the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen, the draughtproofing to the front door and repaired the defective seal to the bathroom floor. The landlord had also raised an order to engage a contractor to investigate and repair the reported faults to the wash and dry WC. It was appropriate that the landlord had completed the outstanding jobs listed in its stage 1 reply and engaged a contractor to address the reported faults with the WC. However, it was once again unreasonable that it had not addressed some of the other issues raised by the resident in her stage 1 complaint and repeated at stage 2, such as the time taken to repair the bathroom window handle and the resident’s request to sweep the chimney.
We have noted that the resident had reported on various occasions that the general condition of the kitchen and the wet room was poor. She questioned whether she should be responsible for maintaining the installations and questioned whether they had actually been installed by the previous tenant or the landlord. As stated earlier in the scoping section, we are unable to make a binding decision about matters such as the interpretation of the mutual exchange agreement.
The local authority carried out an inspection on 24 August 2023 under the HHSRS. It identified various hazards and identified the work expected to resolve or reduce each hazard to a satisfactory level. The landlord’s records show that the landlord provided information to the Council and worked closely with them to address or challenge their findings. For example, the landlord arranged to carry out a joint inspection of the property with the Council in January 2024. It was appropriate that the landlord had worked closely with the Council to address the hazards identified.
Overall, we have found there were various failings by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs and pest infestation, including:
1. There were delays in completing some repairs (as the landlord accepted in its stage 1 reply).
2. The landlord’s stage 1 reply did not address some of the concerns about repairs listed in the resident’s complaint.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging in its stage 1 reply that there had been delays in carrying out some repairs and apologising for this. It sought to put things right by confirming the repairs it would be carrying out and the target timescales. It also said it would appoint a contractor to oversee the repairs.
The landlord also sought to put things right by offering compensation of £260 to recognise the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings (we have noted the total offered was £260, rather than £200 which the landlord incorrectly quoted). We have considered the landlord’s offer and concluded that although the landlord’s offer went some way towards putting things right, it did not satisfactorily resolve the resident’s complaint because it had still not responded to some of the concerns raised by the resident, such as whether the chimney would be swept and the time taken to repair the bathroom window handle.
We have therefore found there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs and pest infestation because the landlord made an offer of compensation but it was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. In particular, the landlord did not address some of the concerns raised by the resident during the complaints process. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation of £100 to the resident. The sum we have ordered is within the range of sums suggested in our Remedies Guidance for service failures.

The resident’s concerns about staff conduct

The resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the conduct of 2 members of the landlord’s staff. It is not our role to decide whether the staff members’ actions and conduct were appropriate. Our role is instead to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. For example, the landlord would generally conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties, making an informed decision based on its findings.
The landlord’s HSM attended the property on 31 May 2023 and following this visit, the resident wrote to the landlord and said the HSM had been dismissive in relation to her disabilities. She said the officer had been rude and requested the landlord to provide a single point of contact, rather than several people.
The landlord has provided a copy of a reply it said was sent to the resident on 6 June 2023 addressing her request for a different HSM. However, it is unclear from the addressee shown on the email whether it was sent to the resident. We have therefore not been able to assess whether the landlord responded to the resident’s request for a single point of contact at that stage.
In her stage 1 complaint, the resident said the HSM and the Surveyor had been rude, dismissive and not neurodivergent-friendly during their joint visit to the property. She said she was unhappy with the advice she had received from them regarding the reported repairs and the property condition and said she felt bullied. She requested the landlord to provide her with a different HSM and Surveyor.
The landlord’s records show that the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff were put to the HSM and Surveyor and both said they did not consider their behaviour or their responses to have been inappropriate. As part of its investigation into the resident’s concerns about staff conduct, it was reasonable for the landlord to speak to the staff concerned and to note their responses. However, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord interviewed the resident regarding her concerns and the landlord did not address the concerns in its stage 1 reply. This was unreasonable as the landlord’s actions did not demonstrate it had properly investigated the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff and had made an informed decision based on the findings.
In her stage 2 complaint dated 8 November 2023, the resident said that the landlord had not addressed her concerns about the HSM and the Surveyor. The landlord responded in its stage 2 reply on 13 December 2023 by stating it had spoken to the Surveyor who had said that the visit to the property had gone well and she had not noted any concerns from the resident during the visit. The resident replied to the landlord on the same day and questioned why it had not asked her (the resident) to provide any evidence as she had audio recordings of the conversations.
Our view is that the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff was unreasonable because:
1. The landlord did not speak to the resident or request any evidence from her to support her concerns.
2. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about the HSM.
3. The resident had originally complained about the conduct of the HSM and the Surveyor at a joint visit they attended. It is unclear whether the landlord’s response related to this joint meeting.
In summary, we have found there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct because:
1. It did not respond to the resident’s concerns at stage 1 of the complaints process.
2. It did not demonstrate at stage 2 that it had adequately investigated the resident’s concerns.
We have received information to show that the landlord visited the resident in February 2024 to discuss her concerns about the HSM. However, our view is that such a meeting should have been held during the landlord’s internal complaints process.
We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £100 to put things right. The sum is to recognise the distress caused to the resident because she did not believe the landlord had properly investigated her concerns.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould, including mould damage to her possessions

The landlord’s damp and mould procedure states that when it receives a report of damp and/or mould, it will inspect the property within 10 working days.
The landlord’s records show that on 24 April 2024, the landlord raised an order for a Surveyor to inspect “large wet patches” on the bedroom wall, which the resident had reported. The appointment was booked for 17 May 2023. The Surveyor had therefore attended within a month of the resident moving to the property to inspect the reported damp. It was a shortcoming that the landlord had not inspected within its advertised 10-working day timescale for inspecting damp and mould. However, the delay was not excessive and the landlord’s records indicate that the appointment had been scheduled with the agreement of the resident.
The Surveyor concluded that there were 2 dark patches on the bedroom wall but they were not damp patches. She said something had marked the matt paint finish. The resident had also reported damp in the water meter cupboard and after inspecting it the Surveyor said the wall and carpet were dry. She said there was some condensation forming around the pipe but concluded that no follow-on works were required. Having inspected the property for damp, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings and opinions of its Surveyor.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 May 2023 and said she had reported the ‘wet patches’ in the bedroom and was concerned her bed would be ruined by damp. The landlord replied on 4 May 2023 and provided details of how to report repairs. It also advised her to arrange contents insurance as the landlord did not cover damage to residents’ belongings. As the landlord had already raised an order to inspect the dark patches in the bedroom and the resident had expressed concerns about possible future damage to her belongings, it was helpful for the landlord to encourage the resident to arrange contents insurance.
The resident stated in her stage 2 complaint dated 8 November 2023 that she had reported damp in April 2023 and the landlord had not identified the cause of it. However, as previously stated the landlord’s Surveyor had inspected the property on different occasions, including on 17 May 2023 and 18 July 2023 and had not identified any damp issues. As previously stated, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its Surveyor.
The resident stated in her stage 2 complaint that various belongings had been damaged by mould. The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that, in line with its compensation policy, it was unable to offer compensation for damaged items. The policy states that the landlord will not pay compensation “for claims that should be covered by a home contents insurance policy, which you are responsible to obtain. This includes damage to your belongings (including floor coverings) through leaks, flood, or fire”. It was, therefore, reasonable for the landlord to refuse to compensate the resident for the reported damage to her belongings. However, as the resident’s complaint suggested she believed the landlord to be at fault for the damage, it would have been helpful for the landlord to provide details of its public liability insurer so she could make a claim if she wished to do so. We have therefore included a recommendation that the landlord should provide the resident with details of how she can make a public liability insurance claim.
The local authority carried out an inspection under the HHSRS on 24 August 2023 and identified various hazards. These included damp and mould in the kitchen and bathroom due to inefficient extractor fans. The landlord therefore raised an order on 3 November 2023 to repair/replace the fans. The work was completed on 4 December 2023. As the Council had identified damp and mould hazards in the bathroom and kitchen due to ineffective extractor fans, it was reasonable that the landlord had repaired or replaced the fans.
Although we have not assessed the events after the landlord’s stage 2 reply of 13 December 2023, we have noted that the local authority reinspected the property jointly with the landlord on 19 January 2024. Following the reinspection and a case review, the local authority produced a revised HHSRS report which did not show any hazards relating to internal damp and mould (although it did identify leaking gutters as a damp and mould hazard).
Overall, we have found that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, including mould damage to her possessions because:
1. The property was inspected on different occasions by Surveyors and on 17 May 2023, the Surveyor concluded there was no damp present.
2. The local authority identified damp and mould hazards linked to ineffective extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom and these were repaired or replaced by the landlord.
3. The landlord’s decision not to offer compensation for the reported damage to the resident’s possessions was in line with its compensation policy.

The resident’s concerns about the possible presence of asbestos in the property and the garden

The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 June 2023 and asked whether it had checked the property for the presence of asbestos. She said it was present where the previous tenant had attached the lean-to. The landlord’s records show that its Surveyor had visited the property on 12 June 2023 but the resident was not at home. It was reasonable for the Surveyor to have arranged to inspect the property as the resident had reported the possible presence of asbestos as well as other concerns.
The HSM wrote to the resident on 13 June 2023 to advise her that she and the Surveyor wanted to attend the property on 26 June 2023 to discuss and address the issues raised by the resident on 9 June 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 July 2023 and reported there was a large section of the kitchen flooring ripped and the old asbestos spray adhesive was visible. The resident said the powdery substance was affecting her nose and throat. The landlord raised an order on 7 July 2023 for an asbestos consultant to survey the whole of the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to request an asbestos specialist to survey the property given that the resident had expressed concerns about the possible presence of asbestos.
The asbestos consultant carried out the survey on 24 July 2023 and the report assessed the risks from asbestos as being low or very low. The recommendations were to monitor the condition of the adhesive on the kitchen floor and on the soffits/roof and to manage or remove some cable wraps in the hallway, which were assessed as very low risk. The asbestos consultant had therefore carried out the survey within a reasonable timescale and, having done so, the landlord was entitled to rely on the advice/expertise of the consultant.
On 24 August 2023, the local authority’s Environmental Health team inspected the property and produced a schedule of hazards under the HHSRS. The report said there was evidence of disrepair to areas containing (possible) asbestos. It showed the action required by the landlord was to provide a copy of the asbestos report. It is unclear from the evidence when the landlord sent a copy of the asbestos report to the local authority, however, its records show that it had sent the report by 13 December 2023. It was reasonable that the landlord had sent a copy of the asbestos survey report to the local authority as the Environmental Health team had identified a category 2 hazard because of disrepair to areas possibly containing asbestos.
Although we have not assessed the events after the landlord’s stage 2 reply of 13 December 2023, we have noted that the local authority reinspected the property jointly with the landlord on 19 January 2024. Following the reinspection and a case review, the local authority produced a revised HHSRS report which did not show any hazards relating to asbestos.
In her stage 2 complaint dated 8 November 2023, the resident said she was dissatisfied because there was still asbestos in the property and the landlord had not carried out a full asbestos survey. The landlord did not address this point in its stage 2 reply and this was therefore a shortcoming on the landlord’s part. However, we have taken into account that the landlord had arranged an asbestos survey in July 2023 and it had provided general asbestos awareness information in the welcome pack given to the resident. The report produced by the asbestos consultant stated it had accessed all parts of the property.
In her stage 1 and 2 complaints, the resident referred to contractors carrying out works in the property and not being aware of the presence of asbestos. The landlord’s Asbestos Management Policy states: “Staff/contractors must check the Asbestos Register and do an on-site risk assessment before carrying out any maintenance or building work where there’s a risk asbestos may be present and disturbed (includes dwellings)”. As the landlord provides its contractors/operatives with access to the asbestos register and requires them to check the register before carrying out works that might disturb asbestos, the landlord is entitled to expect them to conduct the appropriate checks before carrying out any works.
Overall, we found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the possible presence of asbestos in the property and the garden because:
1. The landlord had provided general asbestos awareness information as part of its welcome pack.
2. The landlord’s Surveyor had visited the property during May to July 2023 in response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos and other matters.
3. The landlord had arranged for an asbestos consultant to carry out an asbestos survey of the property and had sent a copy of the report to the Council’s Environmental Health team.
4. Having arranged the survey, the landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise and findings of the consultant.
5. The consultant had identified the risks as low or very low. It had recommended monitoring the asbestos and to manage or remove the asbestos cable wraps in the hallway.
The evidence shows that there was a further asbestos survey carried out in 2024 and asbestos was removed from the garden under controlled conditions. However, as stated earlier, we have not investigated events that occurred after the landlord’s stage 2 reply.

The gas and electrical safety tests following the mutual exchange

The landlord’s Mutual Exchange Policy states:
1. The property must have a ‘satisfactory’ Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) within the last 5 years before any exchange can take place.
2. The landlord must arrange for a new EICR to be produced after the exchange has taken place.
3. Before an exchange can take place, and before the outgoing tenant has vacated, the landlord’s heating contractor must have capped the gas supply of the property.
4. Incoming residents must contact the heating contractor when they have moved in. The heating contractor must return to the property to carry out a ‘turn on and test’ and produce a new Landlord Gas Safety Record (LGSR).
Prior to the mutual exchange the annual gas safety check was carried out at the property on 7 December 2022 and the resident was given a copy of the certificate in the mutual exchange welcome pack. It was appropriate for the resident to be given a copy of the certificate as this was in line with the landlord’s Gas Safety Policy which states: “We will ensure new residents have access to a copy of the Landlord’s Gas Safety Record before they move in”.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord carried out a gas safety check shortly after the resident moved to the property. This was inappropriate as the mutual exchange agreement signed by the resident stated that the landlord would carry out a gas safety check within 2 working days after the exchange had completed. The landlord’s failure to carry out the gas check was also contrary to its Mutual Exchange Policy which states that the heating contractor must attend the property to carry out a ‘turn on and test’ and produce a new LGSR.
The landlord’s records show that on 10 March 2023 it had created a task on its computer system to carry out the gas safety check after the resident moved in. However, the task is shown as having been cancelled and there is no explanation given for the cancellation.
The landlord carried out the gas safety check on 16 October 2023, which was within 12 months of the previous safety check and was therefore within the 12-month period required by law.
The gas safety check on 16 October 2023 did not highlight any faults, which indicates that the landlord’s failure to carry out the check shortly after the resident moved in had not placed her at risk. However, carrying out the gas safety check would have provided the resident with some reassurance that the gas appliances and pipework were safe. She was concerned about the gas safety because she wrote to the landlord on 23 August 2023 and pointed out that the gas safety check should have been carried out within 2 days of her moving in. She also advised the landlord of this in an email dated 4 September 2023.
In terms of carrying out an electrical safety check, again the mutual exchange agreement form stated that the landlord should complete this within 2 working days of the resident moving in. In this case, an order was raised on18 May 2023 to carry out the electrical check, which was a month after the resident had moved in, and an appointment was booked for 15 June 2023. We have not seen any evidence explaining why it had taken a month to raise the order for the electrical check and therefore this was inappropriate as the time taken was not in line with the agreement signed by the resident.
We have not seen any information indicating when the previous EICR had been carried out and therefore we are unable to assess whether there had been a current EICR in place at the time of the mutual exchange. However, the landlord’s records show that the landlord’s contractor had carried out a pre-mutual exchange electrical check on 1 March 2023, which was reasonable to check the safety of the electrical installations prior to the exchange.
The EICR produced on 15 June 2023 stated that the overall assessment of the electrical installations was satisfactory and there were no C1 (dangerous) or C2 (potentially dangerous) issues identified. Therefore, as with the gas safety check, the delay in carrying out the EICR had not placed the resident at risk, however, completing it earlier would have reassured her that the electrical installations were safe.
One of the resident’s concerns was that the electric oven/hob was plugged into a standard electrical socket, rather than having its own dedicated circuit. The EICR dated 15 June 2023 confirmed that the oven/hob should have its own circuit but stated that it was safe for continued use. This suggests that the delay in carrying out the EICR had not placed the resident under any particular risks in relation to using the oven/hob. The landlord raised an order on 5 July 2023 to install a new cooker circuit with a fused spur. The landlord’s records show that the work was completed on 10 July 2023. It was reasonable that the landlord had raised an order to provide a dedicated electrical circuit for the cooker as this had been recommended on the EICR. The order was raised on a 28-day priority and therefore the work was carried out within a reasonable timescale.
In summary, we have found that the landlord did not carry out the gas and electrical tests within the timescales set out in the mutual exchange agreement form. Although neither test results revealed any hazards to the resident when they were completed, carrying them out sooner would have provided reassurance to the resident about the gas and electrical installations. This reassurance was particularly important given the resident’s known vulnerabilities. Furthermore, the landlord did not address these failings in its complaint responses and therefore did not identify any learning from the failings.
We have therefore found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the gas and electrical safety checks following the mutual exchange. Although the checks were subsequently carried out, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £100 to put things right in relation to its failings. The amount ordered takes into account the additional stress caused to the resident by not having the electrical and gas checks carried out within the 2-working day period after she moved in.

The resident’s request for a bath to be installed in the wet room

The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 May 2023 and said she would need to buy a bath as she needed to take baths for medical reasons. The landlord replied on 26 May 2023 and said any property adaptation (such as installing a bath) could be looked into if the resident was able to obtain a report from an Occupational Therapist (OT) confirming there was a health need for the bath. The landlord added that if the resident was unable to obtain an OT report, the HSM would need to approve any request to adapt the bathroom.
The advice from the landlord that the resident would need its permission before she could install a bath was reasonable as this was in line with tenancy agreement, which states that residents must not make any alterations or additions to the property without obtaining the landlord’s consent. The agreement adds that the landlord will not unreasonably withhold permission.
The landlord advised the resident that it could look into installing a bath as a property adaptation if she obtained an OT report. The landlord’s Adaptations Policy states that if required, it will ask residents to get advice from an OT to ensure the adaptation meets their current and long-term needs. It also states that its decision to install ‘minor’ adaptations costing less than £2,000 is subject to the availability of funding.
It is unclear from the resident’s email of 24 May 2023 whether she wanted the landlord to pay for and install the bath as she said she needed to “buy” a bath. If the resident wanted the landlord to pay for and arrange the installation of the bath, it was not unreasonable in our view for the landlord to ask the resident to obtain an OT report to ensure the bath would meet her needs. It was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it had clarified with the resident whether she was simply requesting the landlord’s permission for her to install a bath.
In her stage 1 complaint, the resident reiterated her medical need for having regular baths. She said she would be happy to buy the bath but would need some changes made to the existing layout of the bathroom. She outlined 2 potential options for changing the layout. The landlord’s reply in its stage 1 letter dated 7 November 2023 was unclear and, in our view, it was unreasonable that it had not provided the resident with clear advice on whether it would install the bath and carry out any associated adaptations to the layout of the bathroom. The resident had clearly stated that the bath was needed due to her medical needs and therefore it was incumbent on the landlord to provide a clear written decision regarding her request.
The resident stated in her stage 2 complaint on 8 November 2023 that she did not consider the installation of a bath to be an adaptation. She therefore again requested permission to install a bath based on her medical needs. The landlord did not address this part of the resident’s complaint in its response and this was therefore unreasonable.
The evidence indicates that the resident discussed the possible installation of a bath with the Surveyor. However, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord provided a clear written decision on whether the resident could proceed with her request to install a bath. The resident had made it clear in her stage 2 complaint that she was not looking to install the bath as an adaptation and therefore questioned the need for an OT to be involved.
The landlord’s Home Improvements Policy states that if the landlord grants permission for a request to carry out an improvement, it will confirm the decision in writing and outline any conditions or legislation the resident would need to comply with. It also states that if it does not give permission, it will contact the resident to explain why.
The resident had stated on various occasions that she had long-term medical needs which required her to have regular baths. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord had not written to the resident with a clear decision on whether it would grant permission for her to install the bath as a home improvement or whether it needed more detail regarding the proposed works. In our view, the landlord had not given sufficient urgency to giving a clear response to the resident’s request to install a bath.
We have therefore found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a bath to be installed in the wet room. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £200 to put things right. This sum is within the range of sums suggested in our Remedies Guidance for cases of maladministration and takes into account:
1. That the landlord did not acknowledge its failure to adequately address the resident’s request to install a bath.
2. It did not seek to put things right during its complaints process by writing to her with a clear decision.
3. The distress caused to the resident by not receiving a clear response to her request to install a bath.

The associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord may extend these timescales for responding and, if it does so, it will explain the reason for the extension and agree the response date with the resident. If the landlord is not able to agree the extension, the resident can contact us for advice.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 23 August 2023. The complaint included a slideshow and the landlord wrote to the resident on 4 September 2023 to say it could not open the complaint. The resident therefore resubmitted the complaint on 4 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 15 September 2023, which was 9 working days after it received the complaint on 4 September 2023. It was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it did not acknowledge the complaint within the 5-working day timescale stipulated in its Complaint Policy.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 September 2023 and confirmed it had sent the resident’s enquiry to the relevant teams and was awaiting a response. It requested the resident to allow a further 10 working days for it to reply. As the resident’s complaint was very long (30 pages), it was reasonable in our view for the landlord to advise the resident it needed an extension of time.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 October 2023 and said it had not been able to gather all the information it needed to respond and therefore it had now raised the issues as a formal complaint. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not treated the resident’s email dated 4 September 2023 as a formal complaint. She had clearly expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of various matters and had detailed the reasons for her complaint. (We have used the 4 September 2023 as the date the resident submitted her complaint rather than 23 August 2023 as the evidence suggests that the landlord had not been able to access the file).
The landlord’s Complaints Policy defines a complaint as: “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. Therefore, the landlord should have logged the email as a complaint on 4 September 2023. The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 October 2023 and said she had submitted her complaint in August 2023 and had therefore expected her email to be logged as a complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 20 October 2023 and sent its reply on 7 November 2023. The landlord therefore took 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint from when it logged it on 13 October 2023. This was in line with its policy and was therefore an appropriate timescale. The landlord then took a further 12 working days to reply after it had acknowledged the complaint. This was slightly outside its 10-working day target timescale and therefore this was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 November 2023 and asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 15 November 2023, which was 5 working days after the resident had asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The landlord had therefore acknowledged the complaint within an appropriate timescale.
The landlord replied to the stage 2 complaint on 13 December 2023, which was 20 working days after sending the acknowledgement. It had therefore replied within an appropriate timescale which was in line with its Complaints Policy.
In summary, the landlord failed to log the resident’s email dated 4 September 2023 as a formal complaint and did not treat it as such until 13 October, which was over a month later. Although the landlord offered compensation in its stage 1 reply for a delay in the response, the landlord did not specifically mention its failure to log the complaint made in September 2023 and it did not identify any learning from this. We have therefore found there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £50 to put things right, which is within the range of sums suggested in our Remedies Guidance for service failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the mutual exchange, including the condition of the property and garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs and pest infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, including mould damage to her possessions.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the possible presence of asbestos in the property and the garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the gas and electrical safety tests following the mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in in its handling of the resident’s request for a bath to be installed in the wet room.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to provide evidence that it has:
1. Written to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Paid the resident a total of £810 made up as follows:
  1. £360 for its handling of the repairs (the landlord may deduct the £260 it offered at stage 1 if this has already been paid).
  2. £100 for its handling of the staff conduct complaints.
  3. £100 for its handling f the gas and electrical tests.
  4. £200 for its handling of the request to install a bath.
  5. £50 for its complaints handling.

Recommendation

The landlord should provide the resident with details of how she can make a claim to the landlord’s liability insurer for damaged possessions should she wish to do so.