St Albans City and District Council (202306122)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306122

St Albans City and District Council

7 November 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property and outstanding void repairs.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. His tenancy started in July 2022 with a weekly rent charge of £107.03. The property is a 1-bedroom first–floor flat. The landlord has no recorded health vulnerabilities for the resident.
On 20 July 2022 the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the condition and cleanliness of the property following the landlord’s void repair works. He said he had “obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) issues when it came to dirt.” He raised concerns which included the void cleaning standard, a stained toilet seat, bathroom mould, damaged bathroom tiles, and the siting of the gas and electrical meters. The resident raised additional complaint points about the presence of mould in the bathroom and living room on 18 September 2022.
The resident raised a stage 1 formal complaint on 20 October 2022. He said he did not consider the property “habitable yet” and could not move in. He raised further issues at this stage which included:
1. Mould in the bathroom under the basin and toilet cistern.
2. Mould growth in the living room and around the front door.
3. A hole in the wall under the front room window.
4. A hole in the living room doorframe.
5. A sticky substance on a cupboard door in the hallway and the intercom receiver.
6. A cracked bathroom tap and lime scale build up.
7. An issue with an electrical socket in the living room.
The landlord provided it stage 1 complaint response on 11 November 2022. It said it was satisfied the property met the lettable standards and reassured the resident the property was not suffering severe damp. It would clean the surfaces and said his continued residence in the property, to include ventilation and heating, would remedy the situation. It arranged to resolve the other matters he raised. It said as a gesture of goodwill, it would provide him with a rent credit between 15 July 2022 to 7 August 2022.
The landlord accepted the resident’s request to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its internal complaints process (ICP) on 17 November 2022.
The landlord provided its stage 2 final response on 20 April 2023. It apologised that the resident had needed to report “a significant number of issues” and recognised it could have rectified some during the void repair process. It offered a 10% reduction of the resident’s rent, totalling £300.97.
In July 2023 the resident brought his complaint to us. He said he had taken time off work to attend repair appointments, which affected his earnings. He said the property condition at the start of his tenancy affected his mental health. He considered the landlord should offer a “full waiver of his rent and a 50% reduction per week until all matters were resolved.”

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We note the resident’s correspondence said the landlord’s handling of his repair and complaint affected his mental health and wellbeing. He also considered he had lost earnings due to repair appointments. We do not doubt the residents comments.
While we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to establish legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or finances. Nor can we calculate or award damages. We are therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. Such decisions require an assessment of liability and a decision by a court or insurer. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on his health, or personal finances.
In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where we identify a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
We also note that prior to the landlord’s stage 2 final complaint response, the resident wanted a rent reduction. There is evidence he was withholding rent payments due to his outstanding complaint. As such, to secure rental payments, the landlord commenced possession proceedings. It is important at this stage that we advise that complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). We would never advise a resident to withhold rent. This matter will not form part of our investigation. We suggest the resident seeks free and independent advice regarding this matter, should he wish to do so.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property and outstanding repairs

The landlord’s repairs handbook gives repair timeframes within which it will complete repairs, depending on their priority. It gives the following categories of repair:
1. Priority 1 (Emergency): it will attend to make safe within 2 hours and rectify the repair within 24 hours.
2. Priority 2 (At residents’ convenience): it will normally complete the repair within 28 days, and at the resident’s convenience.
On 14 June 2022 the landlord’s internal communication said it had completed a joint visit with its contractor to the property. In which, it identified several outstanding void work items before it could accept the property. Of which, it identified the need to install a heat detector in the property’s kitchen.
Paragraph 5.2 of the landlord’s lettable standards policy says:
1. It will install at least 1 smoke detector, which it will wire into the mains electrical supply, backed up by a battery. It will also ensure the property has a carbon monoxide alarm which will identify any noxious fumes.
2. It will sweep the property’s floors, clean the kitchen units, worktops, bathroom, and toilet fittings.
3. It will provide a new toilet seat.
4. It will ensure the tiled surrounds to the bath and sink are clean and in good condition.
5. To avoid causing any unnecessary delays in moving into the property, it may carry out some repairs after the start of the tenancy. It will discuss and agree these works and timescales with the resident before they move in.
The landlord sent the resident an offer letter for the void property on 5 July 2022. He viewed the property on 6 July 2022 by way of a virtual, 360 degree video viewing link. The resident accepted the property and completed the tenancy sign up process on 14 July 2022.
We note the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s reports about the condition and cleanliness of the property on 20 July 2022. In which, it said that it had viewed the property’s void 360 video report. It said that it had been unable to identify any mould, nor damage to the bathroom tiles. However, it said it would ask its contractor to contact the resident directly to investigate. This was reasonable in the circumstances. It demonstrated the landlord’s steps to acknowledge the resident’s concerns and to put things right for him.
The landlord explained to the resident at this stage that the lettable standards required it to complete a basic clean. It considered it had met this standard and there was no evidence the property was not ready to let. However, it apologised for urine left on the newly replaced toilet seat. It said it would request its contractor investigate this matter.
As part of our investigation, we have viewed the void repair 360 virtual tour of the property and the photographs supplied by the resident. While we note the property’s decoration was a basic standard, and some cleaning incomplete, we were unable to identify any mould or defects which would make it uninhabitable. However, the contractor failed to clean the new toilet seat or leave it in an appropriate condition for the resident. This was disrespectful and did not meet the cleaning expectations of the landlord’s lettable standards.
Following the landlord’s post void work inspection on 24 August 2022, it identified the “outstanding items” which it said needed attention. It informed the resident of its action plan to put things right. This included:
1. A mould wash and treatment to the bedroom and bathroom.
2. Renew kitchen tap and clean off all limescale.
3. Renew the toilet seat.
4. Seal the lounge window frame.
5. Installation of a heat / smoke alarm.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to identify these outstanding items and take steps to put things right, the resident had raised matters 35 calendar days before, on 20 July 2022. Therefore, the landlord failed to remedy these within its 28 day timescale as set out in its repairs handbook.
The Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm Regulations 2015 (as amended by Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm Regulations 2022) impose a legal requirement on social landlords of accommodation, occupied under a tenancy or license to ensure that there is:
1. A smoke alarm on each storey of a property which contains a room being used, wholly or partly, as ‘living accommodation.’
2. A carbon monoxide alarm in any room being used as ‘living accommodation’ where there is a ‘fixed combustion appliance’ (such as flues).
This was only applicable to social landlords from 1 October 2022. Before that, accepted practice was for social landlords to ensure there was a smoke alarm in each of its properties.
While we note the resident delayed his move into the property, it is unclear why the landlord’s repair records do not record this work as complete until 27 March 2023. This being 9–months after the end of the landlord’s void works. This was an unreasonable amount of time and did not demonstrate that the landlord effectively monitored this installation requirement.
While we are not expert in construction, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its specialist staff. Although there is evidence the landlord needed to return to complete works, these issues did not make the property uninhabitable. It does however remain unclear why the landlord did not resolve these matters during the void repair stage. This did not demonstrate the landlord meeting the expectations of paragraph 5.2 of its lettable standards.
Had the landlord believed that these repairs would have delayed the resident moving in, it should have discussed and scheduled them with the resident at the start of his tenancy. That it did not, did not demonstrate that the landlord completed a thorough inspection of its contractors work, nor meet the expectations of its lettable standards.
We acknowledge that the landlord’s records demonstrate no evident mould on completion of its void works. Also, its attempts to attend the property after the tenancy start date to complete mould washes. Of which, on 4 occasions it recorded having no access. While we note the resident worked, it is reasonable that the landlord was unable to achieve some tasks without his availability.
Furthermore, given he had not moved into the property at this stage for 3 months, the landlord’s stage 1 explanation about the development of mould was reasonable. It advised of the need for heating and ventilation and the benefit of him being at the property. The landlord’s actions to address his reports of mould, which may have developed while the property remained empty, were reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident raised various additional decorative repairs in September 2022. Of which, the landlord initially raised works over 4 separate days. The resident said this was inconvenient due to his work. The landlord apologised and offered alternative dates. While the evidence shows this delayed the landlord’s completion dates beyond its repair timescales, it demonstrated it made changes to accommodate its contractors’ availability to that of the resident’s. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord does not dispute that it failed to address matters within a reasonable time. As such, 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’s stage 2 final response on 20 April 2023 apologised “unreservedly” for the length of time repair issues had been ongoing. Furthermore, it did not dispute that it could have rectified some issues during its void repair process. The landlord accepted its failings which was fair. However its response contained no evidence of learning or actions it would take to prevent similar happening again.
The landlord offered £300.97 compensation based on a 10% reduction of the resident’s rent. It did not explain what period this covered. However there is evidence that it increased its offer from that made in its stage 1 response. Based on the weekly rent at the time, it amounts to approximately 28 weeks. This was reasonable and acknowledged the period the resident had waited for work to be replanned and progressed.
While this response went some way to recognise the resident’s loss of enjoyment of the property, it failed to offer redress to recognise the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience to him as he sought to resolve matters. Therefore, its offer did not go far enough to put right the detriment caused to the resident.
Furthermore, we have seen no evidence the landlord reacted to the resident’s comments of having a health vulnerability, OCD. This did not demonstrate effective record keeping or that the landlord investigated how the situation may have been affecting him.
Based on the initial failures and subsequent delays to resolve matters we find maladministration. The remedies guidance available to us sets out that the landlord should offer compensation in the range of £100 to £600. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay an additional £200 to put right the failings which adversely affected the resident.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 2 stage complaints process. The relevant policy says it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 3 working days. It says it will respond at stage 1 within 15 working days, and within 20 working days at stage 2.
This policy did not align with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022. In which, landlords should have responded at stage 1 of its complaints process within 10 working days.
We note from the landlord’s website that it has since updated its complaints response timescales. The landlord’s changes are now in line with the statutory Code which took effect from 1 April 2024.
The landlord accepted a stage 1 formal complaint from the resident on 20 October 2022. This was 3 months after his initial expression of dissatisfaction. Paragraph 1.2 of the Code states a complaint is 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. It is therefore unclear why the landlord did not treat the resident’s dissatisfaction on 20 July 2022 as a formal complaint.
Had it done so, the landlord may have been able to demonstrate its investigation and actions to remedy matters sooner. That it did not, caused the resident time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience. He chased the landlord and raised further dissatisfaction with how the property was handed to him at the start of his tenancy. It was unreasonable that 3 months passed without a full resolution.
The landlord’s relevant complaints policy says it will respond to a stage 1 complaint and stage 2 escalation request within 3 working days. Though, there is no record of any complaint acknowledgements sent to the resident. This was not appropriate and did not meet the expectations of the landlord’s complaints policy.
Accepting the resident’s stage 1 complaint date as of 20 October 2022, the landlord’s response on 11 November 2022 took 16 working days. This was both beyond the 10 working day expectations of the Code and the 15 working day commitment of the landlord’s complaint policy. While this was not appropriate, the detriment of this failure to the resident would have been low.
Paragraph 5.7 of the Code (1 April 2022) says where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, it should incorporate them into the stage 1 response if they are relevant, and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the landlord should log a new complaint.
It is still unclear why the landlord did not treat the resident’s dissatisfaction on 20 July 2022 as a formal complaint. That said, it was appropriate that its stage 1 response included a summary of the points he raised in July as well as other points in September 2022. This was in line with the expectations of the Code.
The landlord accepts that the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its ICP on 17 November 2022. The landlord should therefore have provided its stage 2 final response by 15 December 2022. It failed to meet the 20 working day response timescale, providing its response 106 working days late.
This was not appropriate and not in line with its complaints policy. This failure did not demonstrate an effective complaint handling process and caused the resident time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience as he sought to conclude matters.
For the reasons set out above, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord failed to recognise or apologise for its complaint handling delays and offered no redress to put things right. This was not appropriate. It failed to recognise the effects its failures had on the resident and would therefore be unable to learn from it. We order the landlord to pay the resident £150 to put things right. This is in line with the remedies guidance available to us when there was a failure that adversely affected a resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property and outstanding repairs, which included reports of mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident £650.97 compensation. The landlord can deduct the £300.97 offered within its ICP, if already paid. The compensation is made up of:
  1. £500.97 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property and outstanding repairs, which included reports of mould.
  2. £150 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. We order the landlord to demonstrate that it has provided relevant staff involved with this case with complaint handling refresher training, within the last 6 months. If it is unable to do so, we order it to provide training to ensure it manages complaints in accordance with its complaints procedure. The landlord may benefit from the free resources available via the Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning. This is available on our website.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord considers when it last reviewed its void processes and procedures. Particularly how it identifies, communicates, and monitors outstanding void work with its contractors and new residents. It may be beneficial to ensure teams are aware of relevant roles in keeping residents updated.
We recommend that the landlord ensures that its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect the resident’s circumstances.