Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Winchester City Council (202315836)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315836

Winchester City Council

25 February 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs following a mutual exchange.
  2. The Ombudsman has considered the landlords handling of the mutual exchange process.
  3. The Ombudsman has considered the landlords complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident occupied the property under an assured tenancy agreement. The landlord is a local authority. The resident has depression and anxiety, and their child has a disability.
  2. The property was a 3-bedroom home which the resident moved into following a mutual exchange on 14 July 2022. The landlord later rehoused the resident on 30 January 2024.
  3. When the resident moved into the property, they identified unapproved alterations the previous tenant had made which were of poor quality. The resident reported to the landlord there were additional matters which required repairing.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 25 July 2022. In their complaint the resident said they were distressed at the property being in disrepair, and they felt the landlord was ignoring them.
  5. In its stage one complaint response on 2 August 2022, the landlord said:
    1. it apologised if the resident felt it hadn’t been communicative
    2. it was currently considering a programme of repairs
    3. a structural survey had been planned for 10 August 2022 which might affect the repairs the landlord was planning to complete
    4. it had conducted urgent works and an electrical survey
    5. it was making arrangements for rubbish and rubble to be removed from the garden
    6. in usual circumstances a resident agrees to take on a mutual exchange ‘as seen’, but on this occasion it would conduct repairs due to the state of disrepair in the property
    7. its aim was to make the property safe for the resident and their family to live in, and the resident would be responsible for decorative elements of the property
  6. On 10 January 2023 the resident escalated their complaint. The resident said:
    1. the landlord had agreed to complete repairs in the property in January 2023, but the planned repairs had not begun
    2. when they contacted the landlord to chase the repairs it said it had no record of any planned repairs
    3. a surveyor had missed an appointment
  7. In its stage 2 complaint response on 27 March 2023, the landlord said:
    1. after the resident moved into the property the landlord carried out health and safety inspections and identified works conducted by the previous tenant without the landlord’s permission
    2. it was not responsible for repairing the alterations made by the previous tenant
    3. it was explained in the mutual exchange process that the resident would take the property as seen
    4. it apologised for the missed surveyor appointment in January 2023, and explained this happened as the work was transferred to a specialist contractor
  8. On 30 June 2023 the resident contacted this Service. The resident wanted the landlord to complete the repairs, and they felt it was not fair they had been told they were responsible for the repairs, as they had not damaged the property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs following a mutual exchange

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy notes it is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of its properties. The landlord also commits to ensuring its properties are deemed to be safe, and that they meet the decent home standards.
  2. The landlord’s fire safety policy outlines it will ensure its properties have sufficient fire safety arrangements, and that it will abide by relevant fire safety legislation and guidance.
  3. The Decent Home Standard 2006 is a governmental paper which outlines standards for social landlords. Under the decent home standard landlords are required to provide housing which:
    1. meets the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS)
    2. is in a reasonable state of repair
    3. has reasonably modern facilities and services
  4. The Housing Act 2004 ensures landlords are responsible for assessing hazards and risks in line with the HHSRS. The HHSRS includes that landlords should:
    1. maintain clear escape routes
    2. ensure their properties meet fire safety regulations
    3. conduct repairs and maintenance for structural issues which may impede escape
    4. ensure their properties are secured against unauthorised entry
    5. investigate concerns around structural elements of a property
    6. maintain elements of a property which will ensure it is safe and stable
  5. After moving into the property on 15 July 2022 the resident reported to the landlord the condition of the property was poor. They reported numerous faults, including that there were loose wires, toilets were not working, windows would not open or close, and that rubbish had been dumped in the garden.
  6. On 21 July 2022 the landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend the property. During the inspection the surveyor noted the previous tenant had completed numerous alterations to the property which were of a poor standard. The surveyor said once the landlord had made the electrical work safe it would need to agree to a plan of works to address the alterations.
  7. The surveyor flagged several defects which required actioning including:
    1. a full electrical test was required
    2. a gas safety check was required
    3. several radiators were missing
    4. a structural survey was required
    5. a non-standard kitchen had been installed
    6. the external kitchen door had been blocked in
    7. a new bathroom had been installed
    8. a door was missing from the bathroom
    9. a partition wall had been installed in the living room
    10. new windows and windowsills had been installed
    11. the property had no front door and a glass panel on the porch door was boarded up
  8. Following this inspection the landlord took steps to repair some of the issues. The landlord conducted electrical and gas tests, repaired the toilet, removed the rubbish from the garden, measured the installed kitchen beam and replaced radiators. This was appropriate.
  9. In its stage one response on 2 August 2022 the landlord told the resident it would need to plan a schedule of works to make the property safe, and it would do so after a structural surveyor had assessed the property.
  10. On 10 August 2022 a structural survey occurred. The surveyors report said modifications made to the property by the previous tenant were some of the poorest quality works they had seen within their 30-year career. Within their report the surveyor noted the following:
    1. the backdoor had been removed and sealed over
    2. a new window had been poorly installed in the kitchen, it had no sill and foam was protruding from its fitting into the external wall
    3. the installation of the window had caused cracks to the exterior walls of the property
    4. a wall had been removed to extend the kitchen and a timber beam had been fitted
    5. the beam did not fully extend across its support columns
    6. the beam was poorly fitted and propped up by loose stacked floor panels
    7. the beam did not appear to have a fire protective coating
    8. the beam was likely not installed to building regulations as it appeared to be an inadequate size
    9. there was poor installation and finishing of plasterwork, tiling and coving
    10. there were cracks in the brickwork of the properties perimeter walls
    11. an outbuilding structure had cracked brickwork and appeared to have a defective roof
  11. The surveyor also raised concerns around means of escape from the property in the event of a fire. As the back door had been sealed over, this would have limited the resident’s ability to escape from the home in the event of a fire. Of particular concern to the Ombudsman is there were children living in the home who might not have the physical ability to escape via the kitchen window, as it was fitted in an elevated position above a countertop.
  12. The landlord had an obligation under The Housing Act 2004 and the Decent Home Standard to ensure it completed repairs for structural issues that may impede potential escape routes. The landlord should have re-fitted the rear exterior door on urgently. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not do this, or conduct interim repairs, considering the risk.
  13. The landlord began works to unblock and fit an external rear door on 22 August 2023, which was 405 days after the resident moved into the property. The Ombudsman considers this to be an unreasonable timescale for the landlord to address this issue, as its lack of action put the resident and their family at risk. This is compounded by the fact that the landlord had committed to making the property safe, and its policies outlined it would abide by fire safety standards.
  14. The landlord installed a front door on 12 October 2022. When the resident moved into the property it had no front door, and the home was insufficiently secured by a damaged internal porch door. The landlord installed the front door 91 days after the resident moved into the property. The Ombudsman considers this to be an inappropriate length of time for the resident to have no front door considering the security implications this could have. If the landlord was required to order a custom door, it should have put in place an interim solution to ensure the property was secured to fulfil its obligations under the HHSRS.
  15. The resident escalated their complaint to a stage 2 as the landlord had not taken steps to initiate the repairs it had agreed to conduct in January 2023. The resident said in August 2022 the landlord had agreed to conduct a schedule of works. When they chased the landlord for a start date, they were told it had no record of any planned repairs.
  16. The landlord has said it had no records of the works the resident said were agreed to in August 2022. Repairs records the Ombudsman has reviewed do indicate that works were planned for January 2023. The records note a repair to the porch door was to be conducted alongside “the other works which are planned for January”, suggesting there was repairs planned for this time.  
  17. In its stage 2 response the landlord decided it would not complete the remaining repairs as it said this was the residents responsibility. The landlord said the resident agreed to the terms of the mutual exchange, and this included that the resident would accept the condition of the property as seen. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to object to conducting cosmetic or decorative works, however as the landlord had an obligation to provide the resident with safe housing its stance was inappropriate. The content of the stage 2 would have distressed the resident as it placed the responsibility, and the financial burden of completing the repairs onto the resident.
  18. The landlord’s repairs records show it began to address the structural issues highlighted by the structural surveyor in 2023, specifically it:
    1. began repairs to the exterior of the property on 2 June 2023, 324 days after the resident moved into the property
    2. began repairs to remove the beam on 21 July 2023, 373 days after the resident moved into the property, this repair was marked as urgent
    3. repaired brickwork below the kitchen window on 28 July 2023, 380 days after the resident moved into the property.
  19. Considering the contents of the Landlord and Tenant act 2004, the Decent Home Standard and the HHSRS the landlord was required to take urgent steps to reduce the risk posed to the resident from the structural issues. It could have addressed the issues by fully repairing the defects, conducting interim repairs or temporarily rehousing the resident. Instead, it took the landlord between 11 and 12 months to adequately address the hazards. This was inappropriate.
  20. On 30 January 2024 the landlord arranged for the resident to be rehoused as it decided to conduct significant repairs to address the unauthorised works. The Ombudsman has asked the landlord why its stance around its responsibility for the repairs changed, it did not provide a response to this enquiry.
  21. It was appropriate for the landlord to rehouse the resident and complete repairs to the property. The landlord should have considered this at a much earlier stage, if it had done so it would have limited the distress the resident experienced.
  22. The failures identified in this report had a significant impact on the resident. The resident lived in a property for a significant time knowing there were concerns about the structure and safety of the home. This would have caused the resident concern for theirs, and their family’s safety.
  23. The landlord did not appear to consider the resident’s distress or its own failings in its complaint responses. It did not apologise for its own actions, offer to compensate the resident or explain how it had learnt from the resident’s complaint.
  24. The Ombudsman finds severe maladministration occurred after considering:
    1. the landlord failed in its responsibility to complete structural repairs in a manner which considered associated risks
    2. the landlord committed to initiating repairs in January 2023, but it failed to do so
    3. the landlord allowed the resident and their family to live in a property with limited escape routes in the event of a fire
    4. the landlord committed to conducting repairs which would make the property safe in its stage one response, and then decided it was not responsible for completing this work
    5. the landlord had a responsibility to provide a safe home for the resident where potential hazards were addressed
    6. the landlord did not offer the resident any compensation or redress
  25. The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay compensation of £1,000, for its failure to conduct repairs, or take steps to, ensure the property was safe and free from hazards. The Ombudsman considers £1,000 compensation to be appropriate and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for occasions where there have been a series of significant and repeated failings by a landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the mutual exchange process

  1. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy outlines actions it will conduct during a mutual exchange. Under this policy the landlord will inspect its own properties before a mutual exchange occurs, during this process it will:
    1. book an appointment for a surveyor to inspect the property after it confirms receipt of a mutual exchange request
    2. facilitate an inspection where a surveyor will assess if there are any non-standard improvements, or damage to the property
    3. record if the new tenant will agree to accept responsibility for non-standard improvements or damage
    4. record if there are any repairs which the new tenant does not wish to accept responsibility for, if this is the case the issues will need to be rectified by the current tenant for the exchange to proceed
  2. If a surveyors inspection reveals there are major unauthorised alterations, or significant damage to the property the landlord has two options. It can either approve the exchange on the condition the damage is remedied by the original tenant, or it can refuse the mutual exchange.
  3. The resident applied for a mutual exchange on 1 June 2022 as they wanted to be closer to work and relatives, and because a rural area suited the needs of their disabled child.
  4. Upon receiving the resident’s mutual exchange application, the landlord acknowledged the application in a letter dated 15 June 2022. This letter advised the resident that they should inspect the property, and they could also instruct a surveyor to assess the property. The letter warned the resident if they proceeded with an exchange, they would agree to take the property as seen.
  5. As per the landlord’s mutual exchange policy, after sending the confirmation letter it should have arranged for a surveyor to conduct an inspection on its behalf. The landlord did not arrange or conduct an inspection of the property. This was inappropriate as the landlord let the mutual exchange proceed without knowing the condition of its property, and in doing so it did not follow its own policy.
  6. The Ombudsman asked the landlord why an inspection did not occur. The landlord said at the time it did not conduct inspections prior to mutual exchanges. The landlord said it began to conduct inspections after it adapted its mutual exchange policy in 2023. This explanation was not sufficient or accurate. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy in place in 2022 clearly outlines the landlord will conduct an inspection prior to a mutual exchange.
  7. As an inspection did not occur the landlord was unaware of the extent of the damage to its property, and the health and safety risks the unauthorised works posed. If the landlord had followed its own policies, it could have identified the unauthorised works and rectified the works with the tenant who had caused the damage, or it could have refused the mutual exchange. Had the landlord followed its own policies it could have prevented the distress the resident later experienced from living in a substandard home.
  8. Prior to the mutual exchange there were outstanding repairs to the property which the landlord was aware of. These included fitting a front door which had been removed, replacing a glass panel in the porch door and that the property had no back door.
  9. The landlord should have sought to complete, or make a start to, the outstanding repairs before the exchange occurred. This would have ensured the property was secure when the resident moved into the property. It was inappropriate for the landlord to not consider this, as it is reasonable for a tenant to expect a property they move into is adequately secured.
  10. The resident did have an opportunity to inspect the property themselves, and they could have identified the unauthorised works and reported these to the landlord. However, this does not negate the landlord’s responsibility to follow its own policies during a mutual exchange.
  11. The Ombudsman finds maladministration occurred after considering:
    1. the landlord did not abide by its mutual exchange policy
    2. the landlord did not provide a reasonable explanation for why it failed to inspect the property prior to the mutual exchange
    3. had the landlord conducted an inspection it would have identified the unauthorised alterations, and it could have taken appropriate action
    4. the landlord did not offer the resident an apology or any compensation for its failure to conduct an inspection
  12. The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay compensation of £500 for its failure to abide by its own policies and adequately handle the mutual exchange process. The Ombudsman considers £500 compensation to be appropriate and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for matters where a landlord has failed to acknowledge its own failings or put things right.
  13. The Ombudsman has also made an order for the landlord to review its failings against its mutual exchange policy to identify if other residents have been affected by the landlord not adhering to its mutual exchange policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy outlines how the landlord will respond to a resident’s complaint. In its complaint responses the landlord says it will address all points the resident has raised.
  2. The landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and will provide a stage one response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. If the resident wishes for their complaint to be escalated to stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge this request within 5 days and provide its response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. If the landlord cannot provide its stage one or stage 2 response within the required timescales, it can extend its deadline by 10 working days if it writes to the resident to request an extension.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will offer £15 in compensation when it or its contractors miss pre-planned appointments.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 25 July 2022, and the landlord responded via a stage one response 7 working days later. This was appropriate and within the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy.
  5. The resident escalated their complaint on 10 January 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 27 March 2023, which was 32 working days later. This was inappropriate, and not in-line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
  6. In its stage 2 response the landlord did not appear to consider that it had committed to completing repairs within its stage one response. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it would not conduct any repairs due to the contents of the resident’s mutual exchange application. It made no reference to the residents concerns about planned works for January 2023 which the landlord did not arrange. The contents of the stage 2 were inappropriate and indicated that the landlord did not fully consider the content of the resident’s complaint and escalation request.
  7. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had identified an occasion where it missed an appointment. The landlord apologised for this, but it did not offer the resident compensation. This was inappropriate considering the content of landlord’s compensation policy.
  8. The landlord’s offer of an apology within its stage 2 response was not sufficient in the circumstances, as its apology did not adequately address its own failings.
  9. The Ombudsman has determined a service failure occurred after considering:
    1. the landlord’s stage 2 response was not sent within its required timescales
    2. the landlord did not fully consider all elements of the resident’s complaint and escalation request
    3. the landlord did not offer the resident compensation for a missed appointment
  10. The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay compensation of £50 for its failure to provide the resident with sufficient and timely complaint responses. The Ombudsman considers £50 compensation to be appropriate and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs following the mutual exchange.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in relation of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £1,550 to the resident. The landlord is to provide evidence to this Service of compliance with this order within 4 weeks of the determination date. This compensation is comprised of:
    1. £1,000 for the landlord’s handling of repairs following the mutual exchange
    2. £500 for the landlord’s handling of the mutual exchange
    3. £50 for the landlord’s complaint handling
  2. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord’s chief executive is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this case. The landlord is to provide evidence to this Service of compliance with this order within 4 weeks of the determination date.
  3. The landlord must carry out a review of its practices in relation to its mutual exchange policy. The review should be conducted by a team independent of the failings identified by this investigation. The review should include as a minimum:
    1. an assessment of why the failings identified in this investigation occurred
    2. identification of further occasions where a resident moved to a property via a mutual exchange and may have been exposed to hazards
    3. identification of further occasions where a resident moved to a property via a mutual exchange to a property where there were outstanding repairs the landlord was required to complete
    4. identification of any instances where the landlord rejected repairs requests it was responsible for citing the mutual exchange as a reason it would not complete a repair
  4. Following its review the landlord is to produce a report setting out:
    1. its findings
    2. how it intends to prevent similar future failings from occurring
    3. the number of resident’s identified who have experienced similar issues
    4. the steps it proposes to provide redress to residents who have been similarly affected