The Abbeyfield Society (202314572)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314572

The Abbeyfield Society

8 April 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 response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs to the shower, and a lack of hot water.
2. Query about the removal of the previous tenant’s furniture.
3. Query about council tax.
4. Concern about its handling of matters at the start of his tenancy in May 2020.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a flat in a block. The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable on medical grounds.
The resident made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of his reports about a lack of hot water from the shower on 4 January 2022. He also raised a concern that he was not allowed to bring his own furniture to the property. He said he wanted to be reimbursed for storing his furniture elsewhere. The landlord inspected the shower on the same day. The notes from the inspection stated the water temperature was “fine”.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 10 January 2022. It said it had investigated and found no defects with the hot water system. It accepted the water was not as hot as the resident would like, but this did not amount to a breach in any of its obligations. It said during a ‘virtual tour’ of the property the resident had identified items of the previous tenant’s furniture he would like to keep in the property. It said it did not say he could not take his own furniture. It said it had no responsibility to reimburse him for the costs of storing his own furniture.
The resident reported an issue with shower water temperature in September 2022 (the exact date is unclear). The landlord replaced the ‘heat interface unit’ (HIU) on 30 September 2022. (HIUs centrally control the flow, pressures, and temperature of the heating and domestic hot water systems).
The resident reported an issue with the water temperature and shower pressure on 29 December 2022. It is unclear what action the landlord took at that time.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 January 2023 and asked it to take his complaint to stage 2 of its procedure, and said he was:
1. Unhappy with its position on the furniture issues.
2. Told on several occasions he would be charged for it to remove the previous tenant’s furniture. He said he
3. Under the impression all bills and council tax were included in his rent, and this was not properly explained to him. He said he was
4. Unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the shower repair, and his concerns about water pressure/temperature.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 15 March 2023. It restated its position in relation to the previous tenant’s furniture (that it had left items at the resident’s request). It offered to remove the items if the resident wanted. It restated its position in relation to the storage costs of his own furniture. It said it was “widely accepted” that residents are responsible to pay for council tax in residential properties. It stated this was the case at the resident’s property and apologised for any confusion caused by its communication about the issue.
It gave a history of the shower repairs and said it was still investigating reports of “fluctuating temperatures” within the resident’s property. It said it was not prepared to reimburse the resident for the costs of travelling to his son’s property for showers. It said it would have provided a more economic solution by allowing him to shower in the guest room, had it been aware.

Events after the complaints process

The landlord inspected the shower on 7 April 2023 and identified it needed to order parts as the shower was not working properly. It repaired the shower on 17 April 2024.
The resident contacted us on 19 September 2023 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s decision not to reimburse him his council tax payments, the costs of storage and costs of travel to his son’s house to shower. He stated he disagreed with the landlord’s version of the ‘virtual tour’ of the property, as he was shown an “empty” property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

What we can and cannot consider is called our ‘jurisdiction’. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence we have decided the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern about its handling of matters at the start of his tenancy in May 2020 is outside of our jurisdiction. This is in line with paragraph 42.c. of our Scheme.
Paragraph 42.c. of our Scheme states that we will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising”.
When the resident made his stage 2 complaint in January 2023 he raised a concern about issues when he moved in the property in May 2020, which were:
1. The cleanliness of the property,
2. The fact he was expected to self isolate for 14 days.
3. The quality of the food provided while he was isolating.
4. The landlord did not tell him how to use the shower and heating at sign up, and it failed to tell him where the fuse board was located.
There is no evidence to indicate the resident made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the above matters at the time. Or within a reasonable period of time after May 2020. Due to the time that has passed since this date, we would not be able to effectively assess the landlord’s handling of those matters. This is because evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation. This makes it difficult to carry out a thorough investigation, and make informed decisions.
In addition to the matters outlined above, the landlord responded to other concerns the resident had in its stage 2 complaint response of March 2023. We have determined it reasonable to only assess the landlord’s handling of matters the resident remained unhappy with when he asked us to investigate, in September 2023. This is because we have reasonably to concluded that, as the resident did not raise these concerns when he asked us to investigate, he was satisfied with the landlord’s final response.

Reports of repairs to the shower, and a lack of hot water.

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
When the resident raised his complaint about the shower/hot water issue in January 2022, he said it had been an ongoing since the start of his tenancy. Due to the passage of time, we are unable to assess the landlord’s handling of the matter dating back to 2020. This is because evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from 2022 onwards when the resident raised concerns about the issue again.
When the resident raised the repair to the shower in January 2022, the landlord inspected the same day, according to the information provided to us. This was reasonable in the circumstances and evidence it took the resident’s concern seriously. The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response of January 2022 to set out the findings of its inspection. It is noted the resident was unhappy with the water temperature. However, the landlord set out its position with clarity that it was satisfied the shower was not defective at that time. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
When the resident reported an issue with the shower/hot water again in September 2022, the landlord promptly inspected, and completed a repair within a reasonable timeframe.
When the resident reported the issue again in December 2022 there is no evidence to indicate the landlord took action within a reasonable timeframe. The information we have seen shows it did not inspect the shower until April 2023. This was an unreasonable delay that inconvenienced the resident.
The resident claimed he had incurred increased costs as a result of the landlord’s handling of the shower/hot water repairs. As part of his stage 2 complaint, he asked the landlord to pay the costs of driving to his son’s house to shower due to his shower not working. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns and do not seek to dispute his claim he incurred costs. However, this Service does not have the expertise to make a determination on such matters. We can only assess the landlord’s response and whether its approach was reasonable in the circumstances.
The evidence shows the resident had use of a shower throughout this period, but the temperature of the water was lower than he would have liked. Given the resident had use of a shower, the landlord’s decision not to refund his claimed costs was reasonable in the circumstances.
The comments in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response were inappropriate. We welcome the fact it sought to reassure the resident it was taking his concerns seriously and said it was investigating his concerns. It was inappropriate it did not acknowledge it had not inspected the shower since his report in December 2022. It also said it was unwilling to pay the costs he claimed to have incurred citing it would have offered him use of an alternative shower. However, we have seen no evidence it offered such a provision between January 2022 up until its response of March 2023. Its comments were therefore inaccurate which inconvenienced the resident.
The landlord repaired the shower in April 2023, this was 4 months after the resident reported the issue. This amounts to an unreasonable delay. The resident was inconvenienced by its handling of the repair. We note the landlord did further works to the shower in October 2023. However, as those repairs occurred 7 months after the landlord’s final complaint response. We do not consider its actions from October 2023 within the remit of this investigation. We also note its comment the resident has not reported concerns since, which we welcome.
As a result of the errors identified above, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a repair to the shower. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. This is where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. For the reasons set out above we have determined an order for £175 compensation is appropriate to put things right for the resident.

Query about the removal of the previous tenant’s furniture

The facts around the furniture of the previous tenant are disputed. The resident stated when he made his stage 2 complaint that the ‘virtual tour’ from 2020 did not involve a discussion about the previous tenant’s furniture. The landlord consistently stated throughout the complaints process he had requested to keep the furniture. Based on the evidence available it is not possible to confirm which version of events is correct. Given the passage of time since the disputed events, we have decided it is reasonable to assess the landlord’s response from January 2022 onwards. This is when the resident raised his concerns as part of the complaint process we have investigated.
The resident claimed he had incurred increased costs as a result of being unable to bring his own furniture to the property and the need to pay to store it elsewhere. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns and do not seek to dispute his claim he incurred costs. However, this Service does not have the expertise to make a determination on the landlord’s liability for costs. Instead, we have assessed the landlord’s overall response and whether it explained its position. If the resident disagrees with the landlord’s position on liability for costs he may wish to seek independent advice on how to pursue a claim against the landlord.
A decision on whether the landlord’s was liable for a quantifiable financial loss, ultimately requires a decision by the courts, or via a liability claim through the landlord’s insurer. We are unable to make a determination on this matter, and we are unable to comment on the likely outcome of any such insurance claim.
The landlord used its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses to outline its position in relation to the furniture. It explained it had not refused permission for the resident to use his own furniture. It also offered to remove items of furniture the resident did not want. This was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord outlined its position in relation to paying the resident costs he claimed to incur. While we note the resident disagreed with its decision, the landlord’s approach was reasonable. We have seen no evidence to indicate the resident was unable to furnish his property with his own furniture. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to refuse to pay for the costs of storing it elsewhere.
In his stage 2 complaint, of January 2023, the resident said an operative for the landlord had told him that it would charge him £400 to remove the previous tenant’s furniture. We have not seen evidence to support this claim. However, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not address this concern specifically. This lacked clarity and was a shortcoming in its response. We recommend the landlord set out its position in relation to this matter now.
We have seen no evidence to indicate the landlord acted unreasonably in relation to the furniture issue. We acknowledge the facts around the arrangements for the furniture at the start of the tenancy are disputed. However, the evidence shows that when the resident raised concern about the matter in January 2022 the landlord communicated with clarity and its position was consistent throughout. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter.

Query about council tax

The resident’s tenancy agreement is silent on council tax. The landlord’s ‘key facts sheet’ for rental properties states includes council tax in its section that relates to fees “payable to third parties”. The version of the ‘tenant’s handbook’ provided for this investigation states that resident’s are liable for paying council tax at the scheme where the resident’s property is.
Council tax is a charge administered by the local authority. As such whether council tax is liable is not something this Service can determine. These matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident may wish to contact the LGSCO for assistance if he wishes to raise a concern about the liability or administration of council tax. This investigation has instead focused on the landlord’s response to his request for a refund of the cost of his council tax, due to its alleged failure to tell him was liable to pay it.
Considering the passage of time, it is not possible for us to corroborate exactly what the resident was told when he signed up to the property. The evidence we have seen for this investigation shows that council tax was referred to in the ‘key fact sheet’ as a fee that was payable to a party that was not the landlord. The evidence shows the landlord’s position was clearly that the resident was liable for council tax when he signed up to his property. It is reasonable to conclude it would in all likelihood have explained this position from the outset.
It is also worth noting that the scheme specific tenant’s handbook also mentions that council tax was payable by residents at the particular scheme where the resident’s property is. The version of the tenant’s handbook provided for this investigation was produced in June 2023, which was after the resident made his complaint. However, it is reasonable to conclude that, as that liability to pay council tax was not mentioned as a change in the landlord’s position, it is reasonable to conclude that had been its position for some time.
The landlord outlined its position with consistency and transparency. The evidence indicates that the landlord’s position in relation to council tax was the same throughout the period of the resident’s complaint. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the shower, and a lack of hot water.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s query about the removal of the previous tenant’s furniture
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s query about council tax.
In accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern about its handling of matters at the start of his tenancy in May 2020 is outside of our jurisdiction.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
2. Pay the resident £175 in compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of his reports of repairs to the shower.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord writes to the resident to set out its position in relation to whether it would charge the resident to remove the previous tenant’s furniture from the property.