Southwark Council (201906657)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201906657

Southwark Council

16 December 2020

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 Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.
Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The Complaint

The complaint is about:
1. the state of disrepair of the kitchen window;
2. the information the landlord provided to the resident during bidding and at the tenancy sign up;
3. the delay between the resident’s successful bid for the property and her moving into the property;
4. the alterations to the property between the resident’s initial viewing of the property and her moving into the property;
5. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of multiple disrepair issues following her moving into the property; and
6. the landlord’s complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

39. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

The resident has advised that she became aware that the exterior of her kitchen window was in disrepair following obtaining photographs from her window cleaner. The resident has provided photographic evidence to this service which depicts chipped paint and unpainted wood on the exterior of the kitchen window. While the resident has reported an issue with the functionality of her kitchen window to the landlord, it is not evident that she has reported the state of repair of the exterior of the window. In the first instance, the resident should report this to the landlord to give them the opportunity to repair it.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint regarding the disrepair of the exterior of the kitchen window is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and Summary of events

Background

The resident has been a secured tenant at the property of the landlord since 4 September 2017. The landlord is a local authority.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes that an initial response will be given within 15 working days of a complaint, and a final response within 25 working days of an escalation.
The complaints policy also notes that it will not normally consider a complaint made more than 12 months after the issue arose, however, it will make exceptions if the delay is reasonable.
The complaints policy notes that it may pay compensation in instances of service failure. The policy notes different levels of impact and defines a “medium impact” as one where “the events are clearly an injustice to the complainant and the service has failed to meet the required standards. A repeated failure by us to address the shortcoming, even of a low impact event, could give rise to consideration of medium impact level of compensation.” The policy further notes that for a medium impact service failure, the landlord may offer compensation of £500 per annum for “delay,” and £500 per annum for “distress.” It may also offer a maximum of £250 for “time and trouble.”

Summary of events

The resident has advised this service that she successfully bid on the property on 21 November 2016. Her intention was to downsize from a three-bedroom property to a single bedroom property and she has advised she had been on the waiting list for 10 years. The resident has advised that at the initial viewing of the property on 24 November 2016, she enquired as to whether the loft was included in the tenancy and that the landlord had responded that “you do not need to know about that.”
On 6 June 2017, the resident made a formal complaint, noting she had made multiple telephone enquiries regarding the ongoing delay to her moving in, but had not received an explanation. The landlord responded on 27 June 2017 and advised that “final snagging issues were identified and agreed, and the works will be completed on 27 June 2017.” It further advised it would provide a moving in date once the works were completed. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 August 2017 and advised that the works had not yet been completed. The landlord replied on 29 August and apologised for the delay and assured the resident that the handover should be “this week.”
The resident has advised she attended a final viewing and completed the tenancy sign up on 4 September 2017. She has also advised that upon inspecting the property, she observed a large quantity of living and dead wasps. She has advised that the landlord verbally assured her that the wasps would be cleared following her moving in date. The resident has advised she subsequently signed the tenancy agreement on the basis of this assurance and the assurance that all other void repair works had been completed. The landlord has provided this service with a copy of the tenancy sign up documents dated 4 September 2017, which note “details of repairs to be done in occupation” as “N/A.”
The resident has also advised this service that the kitchen layout was changed during the void repair works, notably that the amount of cupboard space had been reduced and the kitchen sink had been relocated in front of the window. She has provided this service with video evidence of the kitchen layout at the initial inspection, along with photographic evidence of the current layout, from which it is evident the layout has been altered. The resident has also advised that the carpet was replaced. She further advises, however, that when she was inspecting the property during the tenancy sign up, as she had not been advised to expect any changes, she did not notice this had occurred.
The resident has advised that she subsequently moved into the property on 11 September 2017, and that the landlord conducted a post moving in check-up on 28 September 2017. At the check-up, the resident has advised she informed the landlord that the wasp issue had not been taken care of and that the landlord subsequently arranged for pest control to attend on 6 October 2017. She has further advised that the pest control worker only treated her bedroom window and bathroom window gutter and did not treat the loft. She has provided this service with a job receipt for this work. The landlord has provided this service with its repair history log and repair notepad, however, it does not note any work occurring on that date.
The resident has advised that in the months following her moving to the property, she raised multiple repair issues with the landlord relating to her heating system and the electrical fixtures. The landlord’s repair history log notes it attended the property on multiple occasions to carry out repairs relating to these issues over this period.
The resident has advised that the landlord attended the property on 26 June 2018, during which the resident informed it of a number of disrepair issues with the property. On 21 November 2018, the resident wrote to the landlord and confirmed the issues they had discussed, notably that the kitchen layout had changed following the initial viewing resulting in reduced cupboard space. She noted she had discussed the possibility of adding additional cupboard space but had been informed this was not possible. She further noted that the kitchen sink had been relocated, partially obscuring the window and making it difficult to operate the window. Additionally, she advised that the window sash mechanism was broken. She also advised that there was a gap behind the kitchen sink which allowed water to leak underneath and that although a repair had been undertaken to cover this gap, it had been unsuccessful, and that water was still leaking through.
The resident also noted that the landlord’s contractors did not attend an appointment on 8 October 2018, and that upon calling the landlord to enquire as to why, she was informed the landlord “would get someone to call me I was told I would receive a compensation payment which I have not received.” The landlord’s repair history log notes that an appointment was cancelled on this date due to concerns over access. It is not evident that the resident was subsequently informed of the cancellation.
The resident made a formal complaint on 8 January 2019, reiterating the issues she had raised in her previous correspondence. She also complained that the landlord had denied her request for an extractor fan in the bathroom despite her concerns about condensation, noting it had advised her to instead “open the windows.” She further advised she had concerns about the location of the cooker in the kitchen being against an internal wall causing it to get “excessively hot,” and that the fire door was very heavy, noting the landlord’s contractor had advised her it had previously been fitted incorrectly.
The landlord responded on 1 February 2019 and advised it had arranged for its technical officer to attend the property on 13 February 2019 to determine and arrange further works. Following this inspection, it would “then consider if compensation is relevant for any delay in works.” This communication did not identify itself as formal response to the resident’s complaint, nor did it advise how the resident how she could request an escalation. The landlord has advised this service that following this communication, the complaint was closed, however, the response did not advise this to the resident.
The resident contacted her MP on 8 February 2019 and requested their assistance in addressing her complaint with the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 April 2019 to report that its contractors had arrived at the property late resulting in her needing to cancel a medical appointment. She noted that the contractor was booked to repair an extractor fan that had been “previously fitted incorrectly” and that a further booking was now required. She subsequently enquired about compensation for this missed appointment. She further noted that contractors had previously had to cancel on 11 April 2019 due to a “very large active beehive” in her loft but had not heard anything further.
The resident’s MP replied to her on 1 May 2019 to confirm they had made enquiries with the landlord regarding her concerns. The MP included correspondence it had received from the landlord, however, the dates it received this correspondence is not included. In its correspondence with the MP, the landlord advised it had received “no complaint of disrepair.” The resident subsequently contacted the landlord on 16 May 2019 and disputed its assertion that “there are no records of any complaints and this is the first indication of there being a problem.” She noted that she had also only recently been informed that the loft was not part of the property and reiterated that when initially viewing the property, she had been told “you do not need to know about that” following her enquiry about the loft. She further noted that when she initially viewed the property “there was no mention at any time of what type of works had to be done,” and that “had I … been told during the viewing exactly what work was actually required … I would never of considered the Bid.” She referred to the ongoing repairs occurring at the property and noted that the landlord’s surveyor’s report dated 26 April 2019 did not show the full list of issues she had raised.
On 17 May 2019, the resident received emails from two directors of the landlord which offered apologies for her experience. The landlord subsequently contacted the resident on the same date to arrange a face to face meeting to discuss the outstanding repairs. Following this meeting, the landlord contacted the resident on 24 May 2019 to confirm the schedule of works agreed to, which included: repairing the kitchen window; repairing the kitchen sink unit; fitting an additional kitchen storage unit; replacing the kitchen extractor fan; repairing the bathroom window; fitting a living room pendant light; and assessing if a beam can be fitted in the living room to support a chandelier light.
The landlord contacted the resident again on 21 July 2019 and advised it understood that the works had now been completed. It sought to arrange a final inspection of the works and noted that the resident had complained that some of the works should have been completed prior to her moving into the property. It advised it would “review the repairs history since the start of your tenancy and process any compensation in line with Council Policy.”
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 September 2019 and advised that the works had still not been completed. She expressed her concern that further appointments were still being arranged to complete the works and requested to be updated as to how much longer the works would take. On 4 November 2019, the resident contacted the landlord again to make a further complaint that the kitchen sink unit and the skirting board in the kitchen had still not been repaired. The resident further noted on 18 November 2019 that she had been informed that her original complaint had been closed. She noted that she received a communication dated 1 February 2019, but that she “still cannot see this information anywhere in the email.” On 3 December 2019, the resident requested that her complaint be reopened and that it be escalated to stage two.
On 6 December 2019, the landlord replied and noted its communication dated 1 February 2019 “did not state that this meant your Stage 1 complaint had been closed.” On 14 January 2020, the resident advised she was “not happy with the service and the long delay and how this has been dealt with in sorting out this unacceptable situation” and that her preferred outcome was to “move to a suitable home which is fit for purpose.” The landlord met with the resident to discuss her complaint on 28 January 2020, and on 10 February 2020 it confirmed it would provide its stage two response by 25 February 2020.
The landlord provided a detailed final response on 5 March 2020. Regarding the delay between the resident’s successful bid for the property and her moving into the property, the landlord advised it found that “the records available do not provide a compelling reason to show why it took a significant length of time to make the property available to you. It is not clear that any amount of significant works were identified as being necessary.” It further advised that “the amount of work instructed is less than you would typically expect to see in a property which was void for this length of time,” and that “the work items instructed when you moved into the property could reasonably have been picked up when the property was void.”
The landlord also advised that during the void repair works, there “was an intent to leave the kitchen in place as it was,” however, following the fittings being removed during the works, “it was then found that the kitchen could not be reinstated. As such, a new kitchen was put in place.” The landlord also advised that the “carpets were removed in line with standard voids protocol, in which floor coverings left by previous tenants are taken out.” The landlord further advised that while it acknowledged the layout had changed, it was not “obligated to leave existing fixtures and fittings in place,” and so it found “no clear breach of protocol in what happened.”
Regarding its complaints handling and stage one response, the landlord stated it had been “proactive” in arranging further inspections, however, its response “does not wholly comply with the guidelines outlined in [its] Complaints policy: it does not, for example, make clear that it is the formal response, or provide details on how to escalate your complaint to the next stage of the process.”
Regarding the multiple disrepair issues following the resident moving into the property, the landlord advised it had “found that there are nine submissions, including this complaint,” and that “most of the submission relate to the issues raised in this complaint in one way or another. I will not therefore outline the full detail of each here.” The landlord noted the resident’s concerns regarding disrepair issues and listed the various attendances it had made to address these, including three technical inspections. It confirmed that following its most recent visit to the property in December 2019 “no [further] works were necessary from the view of the Repairs service.” It also agreed that “the types of repairs being instructed inside the first year are items which would usually be addressed in the course of a property being void,” and that while “the [landlord] has taken steps to provide a remedy to these issues when they have been reported by you … these are items which should reasonably have been addressed prior to you taking occupation.”
Regarding the paperwork completed at tenancy sign up, the landlord advised that “some of the paperwork I would expect to see, concerning the second viewing of the property and your impressions around the condition of the property, is unavailable and it is unclear if this was completed at the time.” It advised, however, that “as to whether there was a specific intent to withhold information about the condition of the property in order to induce a letting, there is not any clear evidence that this was the case,” and that while “there are a number of work items which should have been picked up during this period, in addition to steps taking to ensure that the property was free from pests … the information available suggests that the lack of action in respect of these matters was more attributable to poor coordination and record keeping however, rather than a wilful intent to mislead.”
Regarding the resident’s concerns that the layout of the kitchen posed health and safety risks, the landlord noted that none of the three technical inspection reports it had carried out “recorded any health and safety concerns about the condition or layout of the kitchen.”
The landlord also addressed the resident’s request to be relocated to another property and noted it had previously discussed with her “the possibility of downsizing to a one-bedroom property using the Smart move scheme, or the potential for mutual exchanges,” but that the resident “had not wished to pursue this as an option at that time.” It further advised that “this was not something I could compel on a discretionary basis, unless there was … a clear health and safety-based assessment of the property in its current condition which would give rise to the need to award you with higher priority. The information available to me does not show this need and there is therefore little grounds on which to advocate for a change in your housing priority.”
The landlord concluded that it “partly upheld” the resident’s complaint. It subsequently offered compensation of £1,500, being “the maximum Time & Trouble payment for the years 2018 and 2019, equating to £500, and £500 for each year under the ‘Distress’ tariff, equalling £1,000.”

Assessment and findings

Information the landlord provided to the resident during bidding and at the tenancy sign up

The resident has advised this service that at the initial viewing, she requested information about whether the loft was included in the tenancy, but the landlord had responded that “she did not need to know about that.” The tenancy agreement and signup documents provided to this service do not mention that the loft is part of the tenancy. The resident did not discover that the loft was not part of the tenancy until she was informed by the landlord’s technical inspector on 26 March 2019. The landlord did not address the comments regarding the loft in its final response but did note that “some of the paperwork … concerning the second viewing of the property … is unavailable.” While the Ombudsman would expect that a landlord should provide all information regarding a tenancy to a prospective tenant, given that there are no written documents indicating it was unable to provide this information, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding that this information was withheld. Ultimately, it is up to a resident to make further enquiries about any outstanding issues or concerns that may affect their decision to sign up to a tenancy.
The resident has advised this service that at the tenancy sign up, aside from the issues surrounding the wasps at the property, the landlord did not report any further works required for the property, nor did she identify any. The tenancy signup documents also note “details of repairs to be done in occupation” as “N/A.” The landlord’s final response found that while “there are a number of work items which should have been picked up during this period … the information available suggests that the lack of action in respect of these matters was more attributable to poor coordination and record keeping however, rather than a wilful intent to mislead.” The landlord has also advised that it did not retain any documents relating to the repairs done at this time. Given the lack of information available about the repairs works identified during the void period, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding that the landlord withheld information about the repairs required.
The landlord’s complaints policy notes that it will not investigate issues that occurred more than 12 months prior to being reported. Given that the bidding process and subsequent tenancy sign up occurred more than 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint, it was commendable that the landlord used its discretion to investigate the complaint.
Keeping an accurate audit trail is an important part of a landlord’s service delivery. The Landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of any repairs, so that it can satisfy itself and the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman if necessary) that it took all reasonable steps to meet its obligations prior to making the property available. While the Ombudsman would consider it best practice to retain such records, given the amount of time that passed between the issue rising and a formal complaint being made, the landlord’s response that detailed records were unavailable was reasonable. This complaint highlights the difficulties in investigating issues older than 12-months and demonstrates the importance of making complaints in a timely manner.
The resident has advised this service that she considers her tenancy agreement to be legally invalid on the basis she was not provided information about the ownership of the loft or the repair works required to be completed following occupation at the tenancy sign up. A determination that a contract is invalid is beyond the scope of the Ombudsman’s powers. Such a determination is better suited to the Courts.

Delay between the resident’s successful bid for the property and her moving into the property

The resident has advised this service that she made multiple telephone calls to the landlord seeking an explanation for the delay but did not receive a response. She subsequently made a formal complaint and was advised by the landlord that the works would be completed by 27 June 2017, seven months after the initial viewing. The response did not detail what works were being undertaken. It is also not evident why the property was not available to move into for a further two months after this date.
In its final response, the landlord acknowledged that “the records available do not provide a compelling reason to show why it took a significant length of time to make the property available to you. It is not clear that any amount of significant works were identified as being necessary.” While this service has not been provided with any evidence to suggest the landlord committed to have the property ready within a specific timeframe, the Ombudsman considers it best practice to keep a resident updated with any significant delays in order to manage their expectations, which the landlord did not do in this instance. However, as noted above, given the amount of time that had passed between the void repair works and the initial complaint, the landlord’s response that detailed records were unavailable was reasonable.

Alterations to the property between the resident’s initial viewing of the property and her moving into the property

It is not disputed that the kitchen layout was altered, and the carpets replaced in between the initial viewing and the tenancy sign up. The landlord has provided this service with its void property guide, which notes that the previous carpet can remain unless it required replacing. The document does not give any guidance regarding the layout of other fittings or fixtures. The resident has also advised she received a copy of this guidance.
Regarding the carpet, the landlord advised in its final response that “carpets were removed in line with standard voids protocol, in which floor coverings left by previous tenants are taken out.” This service has not been provided with any documents that note that carpets are removed as standard, and this is in contrast to the voids guidance document received. The voids guidance document, however, appears to be internal guidance only and is not, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, a binding procedure. It is not evident that landlord made any assertions that the carpet would remain, nor is it evident that the resident requested they remain. The resident has also advised she did not raise the carpet as an issue when she viewed the property at tenancy sign-up. It is also not evident from any of the technical inspection reports that the carpet is substandard or defective. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord not to uphold this element of the resident’s complaint.
Regarding the kitchen layout, the landlord advised in its final response that while it had initially intended to retain the kitchen layout, following its repair works, it was unable to. The landlord further noted that it was not obligated to leave fixtures in the same layout and this service has not been provided with any evidence that would suggest otherwise. It is also evident that the layout had been altered prior to the final inspection and tenancy sign up and so the resident should have reasonably been aware of the change at this point. As noted above, it is a resident’s responsibility to raise any issues or concerns prior to signing up. The landlord further noted that its technical inspection reports did not identify any risks caused by the current layout. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord not to uphold this element of the resident’s complaint.
The resident has advised that the new layout reduced the overall amount of cupboard space in the kitchen, and that the landlord had initially refused her request to reinstate additional cupboard space. As noted above, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord was not entitled to reduce the cupboard space during the void repair works. It was commendable, therefore, for it to have agreed to install additional cupboard space in its communication on 24 May 2019.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of multiple disrepair issues following her moving into the property

The resident has advised this service that she initially reported the issue with wasps at the property at tenancy sign up, and that she was assured it would be dealt with by the moving in date. The resident has also provided this service with a work receipt provided to her by the landlord indicating that the wasps were not attended to until October 2017. Given that the initial report and assurance from the landlord was not documented, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding that the landlord failed to complete this work when stated. However, the landlord’s repair logs provided to this service do not note an attendance in October 2017 relating to the wasps, which once again highlight its poor record keeping.
It is not disputed that the landlord attended the property on multiple occasions to carry out repairs. The resident has advised that since moving into the property, the landlord’s contractors have attended her property to carry out repairs on over 55 occasions. The landlord’s repair logs note over 100 entries across this time period; however, it is not clear which are attendances, and which are follow up notes. It is evident that the landlord was made aware of the repair issues following its first technical inspection of the property and following both the resident’s initial complaint and the MP’s communication. In its final response the landlord noted that it was required to complete two further technical inspections to address the issues raised. It further acknowledged that the multiple complaints raised by the resident over this period related to the same issues. The landlord does not give an explanation as to why so many appointments were required to complete the works, which would have been appropriate to help the resident understand if the landlord had acted reasonably. It was appropriate therefore, that the landlord awarded compensation for the distress caused to the resident over this period. The landlord awarded £1,000, being £500 for each year that the works were ongoing. This amount is the maximum amount per annum under its compensation policy for “medium impact” service failure. This amount of compensation is in line with what the Ombudsman would expect for this level of service failure.
It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer an additional £500 compensation to acknowledge the amount of effort the resident had gone to in order to arrange the repairs. This amount is the maximum amount available under the landlord’s compensation policy and is also in line with what the Ombudsman would expect for this level of service failure.
In its final response, the landlord also acknowledged that the “the types of repairs being instructed inside the first year are items which would usually be addressed in the course of a property being void,” and that while “these are items which should reasonably have been addressed prior to you taking occupation.” The landlord’s compensation policy also allows for compensation for a delay to the landlord’s services in addition to any compensation for distress. Given that it accepted works should have been done during voids period, but they were not completed until December 2019, this has caused a significant amount of inconvenience to the resident and so an amount of compensation representing this delay is also appropriate. Based on the landlord’s compensation policy, and in line with similar cases, the Ombudsman considers that further compensation in the amount £250 is appropriate.

Complaints handling

The resident made her initial complaint on 8 January 2019. The landlord’s complaints policy notes it will provide its initial response within 15 working days. The landlord provided its initial response on 1 February 2019, which is 18 working days from the complaint date. The Landlord’s response did not acknowledge this delay, nor offer an apology. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would be in line with best practice to offer an apology in such instances.
The landlord’s initial response did not identify itself as a response under its complaints policy, nor did it advise the resident how to escalate her complaint. The landlord has advised this service that following its initial response, the complaint was closed, which it did not advise in its response. The resident did not become aware that her complaint had been closed until approximately June 2019, at which point she was advised to open a new complaint. The landlord noted in its final response that the initial response did not “comply with the guidelines,” and that its failure to advise the resident how to escalate her complaint had caused “unnecessary administrative delay.” It was appropriate, therefore, that it offered its “sincere apologies” for its service failure. The landlord’s complaints policy also notes it would have been appropriate to advise how it would learn from this incident and improve its service in the future, which it did not do on this occasion.
In her communication on 21 November 2018, the resident raised the issue of compensation for a missed appointment on 8 October 2018. The landlord’s complaints policy notes it may offer £5 per week for a low impact delay in delivering its services. This service has not been provided with any evidence that the landlord followed up this request. The landlord did raise the possibility of compensation in its initial response on 1 February 2019, noting it would make an assessment following its technical inspection on 13 February 2019, however, this service has not been provided any evidence that the landlord informed the resident of its position regarding compensation following this inspection. The resident again raised the issue of compensation following a late attendance of contractors in her communication to the landlord on 30 April 2019. This service has not been provided with any evidence that the landlord addressed this request. The landlord also advised the resident it would consider if any compensation was payable in its communication dated 21 July 2019, however, this service has not been provided with any evidence that this was followed up. The landlord’s final response, while ultimately making an offer of compensation, does not address its continued failure to follow up its previous discussions about compensation with the resident, or offer an apology.
The landlord’s complaint’s policy notes that a final response will be provided within 25 working days following an escalation. The resident made her initial request for an escalation on 3 December 2019, which the landlord acknowledged on 6 December 2019. On 22 January 2020, the landlord requested a meeting with the resident to discuss her complaint. This was 30 working days following its acknowledgement of the escalation request. On 10 February 2020, the landlord assured the resident it would provide its final response by 25 February 2020, however, it did not provide its final response until 5 March 2020. This service has not received any evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to advise its response would be delayed. The final response does not acknowledge these delays, nor offer an apology.
Given the amount of issues raised by the resident, it was appropriate that the landlord’s final response was extremely comprehensive. It appropriately acknowledged and accepted its failures regarding the repairs and delays, and appropriately offered explanations and apologies accordingly. It was also appropriate that it offered the maximum amount of compensation under its policy for the distress caused to the resident and for her time and trouble in pursuing her complaint.
The landlord has also demonstrated its commitment to provide a resolution to the resident’s concerns through its multiple technical inspections of the property, and the subsequent repair orders. However, the abovementioned failures regarding its initial response, failures to address the resident’s repeated requests for compensation, and failures to comply with the deadlines in its complaints policy amount to a service failure, and it is right that an amount of compensation be paid. Based on the landlord’s compensation policy, and in line with similar cases, the Ombudsman considers that compensation in the amount of £50 is appropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding:
1. the information the landlord provided to the resident during bidding and at the tenancy sign up;
2. the delay between the resident’s successful bid for the property and her moving into the property; and
3. the alterations to the property between the resident’s initial viewing of the property and her moving into the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding:
1. its response to the resident’s reports of multiple disrepair issues following her moving into the property; and
2. its complaints handling.

Reasons

Information the landlord provided to the resident during bidding and at the tenancy sign up

It is not evident that the landlord withheld information from the resident, and given the amount of time that had passed between the issue arising and the initial complaint, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise it was unable to advise what occurred during this period due to insufficient records.

Delay between the resident’s successful bid for the property and her moving into the property

While the Ombudsman considers it best practice for a landlord to keep a prospective resident informed of any delays to the availability of a property, it is not evident that the landlord made any assurances as to when the property would be ready, or that it was required to make the property available within any specific timeframe.

Alterations to the property between the resident’s initial viewing of the property and her moving into the property

It is not evident that the landlord was not entitled to alter the kitchen layout and replace the carpets and so it was reasonable for it to not uphold this part of the resident’s complaint.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of multiple disrepair issues following her moving into the property

The landlord accepted that the multiple disrepair issues and subsequent multiple technical inspections and works orders had caused significant distress to the resident and required significant time and effort to resolve. While it appropriately offered compensation for the distress and time, it also acknowledged that the repairs should reasonably have been completed during the voids period. Given the significant delay to the works completion following the end of the voids period, an additional amount of compensation is appropriate.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s initial complaint response did not identify itself as a response under the landlord’s complaints policy, nor did it advise the resident how she could escalate her complaint. The landlord also did not advise the resident that her complaint had been closed. The landlord also did not address the resident’s multiple requests for compensation throughout the complaints process until its final response. Additionally, both the landlord’s initial and final response were issued beyond the time limits given in its complaints policy.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £1,800, comprising:
1. £1,750 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its accepted delays and failures in regard to the complaint about multiple disrepair issues; and
2. £50 for its ineffective complaints handling.
This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £1,500.
This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord to take steps to ensure its records keeping system is effective.
The landlord to take steps to ensure that its complaints handling staff are aware of the details of its complaints policy. This should also include consideration of this service’s guidance on remedies at https://www.housingombudsman.org.uk/aboutus/corporateinformation/policies/disputeresolution/guidance-on-remedies/ and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housingombudsman.org.uk/landlords/e-learning/ if this has not been done recently.