Regenda Limited (202113848)

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113848

Regenda Limited

5 September 2023

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 relates to the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concern over bandings for allocating properties under Home Choice.
2. Handling of repairs to the property in:
  1. 2020/2021.
  2. 2021/2022.
3. Handling of reports of a mouse infestation.
4. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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.
After carefully considering all of the evidence, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her concern over bandings under Home Choice falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident complained on 28 July 2020, about the landlord’s banding criteria for allocating properties. The landlord uses Home Choice, which is a needs-based banding system. Bands are arranged to reflect housing need, with the highest band indicating the greatest need for housing. The bands within the policy are based on the ‘reasonable preference’ criteria set out within the 1996 Housing Act.
The LGSCO considers complaints about housing allocations under the Housing Act 1996 Part 6. This includes applications for re-housing that meet the reasonable preference criteria (dealt with by the local housing authority or any other body acting on its behalf, which could include a housing association), and covers assessment of such applications, the award of points, banding, or a decision that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference.
As such, this complaint falls properly under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
It follows that the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her concerns over banding under Home Choice falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. It is open to the resident to submit her complaint to the LGSCO, along with this report in support of the finding that the complaint is within the LGSCO’s jurisdiction to investigate.

Background and summary of events

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord’s property, a two bedroom mid-terraced house. The tenancy began in May 2020. The resident occupied the property together with her two daughters, but has since moved out.
On 18 May 2020, and over the following days, the resident sent pictures of the property to the landlord, as well as messages, as she was unhappy with the condition of the property. Her concerns related to the cleanliness of the property and potential damp.
On 21 May 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident in response. It said:
1. It would conduct all future contact by email, as it perceived her contact as ‘abusive’.
2. The resident had referred to the cleanliness of the property. It had arranged for someone to clean it; but, they had been unable to gain access because the key had not been left.
3. The resident was unhappy with the quality of the kitchen, and that she had found a dead mouse in the kitchen. It said it would arrange for a mouse treatment to be carried out.
4. A leak had been caused as a result of her washing machine being installed incorrectly.
5. It could speak with the resident once more about her concerns; however, if it experienced any abuse, it would end the call.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 May 2020, and said:
1. She wished to apologise for her behaviour. The situation had been a “shock” to her system and her mental health had deteriorated. She wished to resolve the situation and the landlord could contact her by phone.
2. She accepted the landlord’s apology for the property not being cleaned adequately, adding that there was miscommunication surrounding leaving keys at the property for the cleaner.
3. She felt the property needed a new kitchen.
4. There was a mouse infestation at the property.
5. She disputed that a leak at the property was caused by her fitting of a washing machine, and it was a longstanding leak.
6. She asked to be relocated if the issues could not be dealt with as they were affecting her mental health.
On 29 May 2020, the landlord emailed the resident and explained that as the kitchen was fitted in 2016 and was fit for purpose it would not be replaced. It said the mice infestation would be addressed once the contractors were back after 1 June 2020, and a job was then created on 3 June 2020.
The landlord asked the resident, on 1 July 2020, to send any photos she had, of rising damp at the property. It also emailed a maintenance company and arranged for it to attend the property the next day to identify any required works.
On 3, 4 and 6 July 2020, the resident emailed the landlord and complained about damp at the property, and asked for the floor to be tested for asbestos.
On 7 July 2020, following its inspection, the maintenance company confirmed it would repoint the brickwork around the first floor windows and trim/seal the external windows. It confirmed that the works would take place over 13 and 14 July.
On 10 July 2020, the resident’s councillor contacted the landlord about the issues she was having at the property. The same day, the landlord said it was trying to resolve the issues, and it was proposing to gather all the information in relation to the complaint and get back to her with a clear list of what the issues were and what it could do. In response, the resident advised that the issues should have been resolved before she moved in.
On 14 July 2020, the maintenance company advised that access had been refused to complete works that had been started the day before. It added that the resident had expressed further unhappiness with the property. The resident notified the landlord, also on 14 July, about mice being in the property, and it responded the same day, to say it would put an urgent request for a company to visit the property.
The landlord met with the resident and her councillor at the property, on 16 July 2020, in order to review the issues. A damp survey was then done at the property, on 21 July, which concluded there were “some minor damp issues to the front lounge that require attention.”
On 23 July 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident and said:
1. It had arranged for a regional director and a director of operations to meet with the resident and councillor at her home, and at the end of the meeting, a resolution to the complaint was agreed by:
  1. Providing access to the property for an independent damp specialist to carry out a survey and undertake any recommended actions (if any). The survey was completed on 21 July.
  2. The director of operations would return to the property and agree a full schedule of works to be carried out with the resident and her councillor.
  3. The resident would move out of the property temporarily to complete works, estimated at two weeks. The resident was provided with an option to stay in a hotel which she declined, and was told of properties which were likely to become available in the following week. Following the meeting, she made contact with the outgoing tenant at one of the properties and later confirmed that she would not move to that property because of a mice infestation. Steps were then taken to identify alternative options for her.
2. An email was sent to the resident on 22 July with a request to visit her at the property on 24 July to agree the schedule of works to be carried out. She declined, stating that she had “had enough stress” and the matter was with her solicitor. The resident added that she wished to be compensated for her blinds, and money spent on decorating.
3. The intention of the visit was to agree the schedule of works with the resident and her councillor and to discuss options for moving, either:
  1. A temporary move to another property in the same area (estimated at 2 weeks).
  2. A temporary move to a holiday park in the same area (estimated at 2 weeks).
  3. A permanent move to a 3 bedroom house in another area. It anticipated receiving the keys for that property on 9 August but it would not be available for a further two weeks to allow sufficient time for any repairs, health and safety checks, cleaning and sanitisation.
4. Alternatively, if the resident felt the resolution to her complaint was to be compensated for blinds and decoration, that could be discussed during the visit.
5. It had spoken with the resident’s councillor who was available for 9.30am on the Friday, and it asked her to confirm if it was convenient to her, or to request an alternative time.
On 24 July, the resident emailed the landlord to say she wanted information about repairs that were reported by previous residents at the property. The landlord responded the same day, and said it was unclear what resolution she sought. It asked her to let it know what she wanted, in the next five working days. In terms of rehousing her immediately, it noted the resident had declined the property in the same area, but if she was interested in the 3 bedroom house, she had to let it know by 5pm on 27 July but it would not be available until the end of August. If it had no reply, it would no longer be available. The landlord also said it had been agreed that the resident could go back on the waiting list in order to bid for properties.
The resident responded the same day and said she wanted to view the 3 bedroom house as soon as the keys were returned, and she was not prepared to wait one month in “disgusting” conditions. She said she wanted compensating by getting all her money back and all costs covered and work done on the house to decent standards.
The resident sent the landlord several emails on 27 July 2020, within them she said she wanted to be out of the property that day, for the landlord to store her property and refund all money she had paid. She said she had to be medicated to live in the property and could not go back to work, and the landlord had breached the tenancy because it had not addressed issues with the property. She said the “mouseman” had not been back to the property and she expected to be compensated for asbestos, damp and mould. She also said the landlord should send correspondence to her solicitor.
The landlord responded the same day and said it would correspond with her solicitor if she provided its details. It also said it agreed to re-register her on Home Choice and confirmed her banding.
Over 28 and 29 July, the resident continued to express dissatisfaction with the property. She also asked if she could be rehoused as a priority. On 29 July, the resident advised that she had moved out and wished to be reimbursed £800 that she had spent on decorating. The resident also expressed concern that she had been discriminated against.
The landlord issued a response to the complaint the same day, 29 July 2020. It said it had been agreed on 3 June 2020:
1. The resident would provide access for an independent damp specialist surveyor to carry out a full survey.
2. Following an inspection, works would be proposed by the maintenance and construction company. These would need to be agreed by the resident and her councillor, together with a start date and completion date.
3. The resident and her family would move out of the property on a temporary basis (approximately two weeks) to allow the works to be completed and it would arrange for her furniture to be placed in storage.
4. It had offered to book a hotel room for the resident, but she declined. It had also identified a number of properties that were due to become empty that she could move to, but she felt that these were unsuitable.
5. It had requested an appointment to visit the property on 24 July to agree the works needed. This would include any additional works that were identified by the damp specialist surveyor. The resident declined the visit and did not give an alternative date.
6. In order to resolve the complaint, it offered to:
  1. Temporarily move the resident and her children to another property for approximately two weeks while work was carried out.
  2. Permanently move the resident and her children to a three bedroom property, which she had identified in an earlier email. It advised that it expected the keys for this property to be handed in around 9 August. It would then need to carry out necessary works to ensure that the property was ready for her to move into.
  3. Re-register her on Homes Choice so she could bid for new properties.
7. In response, the resident asked that she and her family were moved immediately to a holiday park, paid compensation for the money she had spent decorating the property and to cover the moving costs.
8. The resident had asked to view the three bedroom property before accepting it; however, that would have meant her staying in the holiday park longer, which it could not facilitate. However, it said if she wanted to view it, it could be reserved until the viewing could take place, which should be week commencing 10 August, subject to getting the keys. It said it would ensure the property was cleaned before the visit but she would need to stay in the current property until she moved in, if accepted.
9. It wanted to resolve the resident’s complaint to her satisfaction and had made several attempts to carry out works to the property. This included:
  1. Works to the kitchen floor and installing a gas cooker, which was complete.
  2. It had tried to replace the skirting board in the living room, repair the external wall insulation and clean the kitchen; however the resident had refused access.
  3. A full baiting programme had been ordered, but the resident did not allow the specialist to carry out his work. He also reported that the resident had been abusive.
  4. Gaps in the floorboard were due to be repaired, but the resident had refused to let it carry out the work.
10. It said, it was keen to resolve the resident’s concern and the “minor issues” highlighted with damp. To do so, it could:
  1. Move the resident to a holiday park temporarily while work was carried out at the property, subject to her allowing access to carry out works. She must agree to the works that would be carried out before she could move and she must allow access to carry out repairs to the property.
  2. Move her permanently to the three bedroom property.
  3. Refund the cost of the blinds at the property, subject to her providing receipts.
  4. The resident could also apply for properties through Home Choice.
11. It also wished to offer the resident £200 in compensation because it took longer than it should have to agree to replace the kitchen. It said it would be added to her rent account to reduce rent arrears, which stood at £646.
12. The resident should respond within 14 days to confirm which option she wished to proceed with.
13. It noted the resident’s feelings of frustration, but as she had been abusive to staff and contractors it would:
  1. Appoint a dedicated point of contact to correspond with by email only. They would respond within 48 hours. Although emergency repairs could still be reported by telephone.
  2. It had placed a note on her property record that all staff and contractors must visit the property in pairs. The note would be reviewed every 12 months.
The resident sent an email on 30 July 2020, saying a meeting with a solicitor had had to be rearranged. She mentioned she was on medication from her doctor so she could get some sleep at a friend’s house, and she would make an appointment the following day. The same day, the resident sent another email to the landlord saying she noted it felt she was in rent arrears, but in her view rent should have been stopped because although there was furniture at the property, she was not sleeping there. She said she would get her solicitor to deal with the matter as she did not want to go back to the property as she had had to face issues, including controlling her Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD).
On 3 August 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident about her rent account. It apologised that an error had been made in the figures. It confirmed that the rent account was £277.17 in debit. It added that a compensation payment of £200 had been raised and deducted from the arrears, leaving the account at £77.17 debit.
On 4 and 5 August the resident confirmed that they would move to the holiday park, and view the house. However, the resident said the £200 compensation was not enough as she had been “sofa-surfing”, buying takeaways and her belongings remained in the property potentially getting damaged. The landlord responded the same day, and reminded the resident of the options put to her in its letter of 29 July. However it is unclear if the resident responded.
On 8 October 2020, the landlord obtained an injunction against the resident. This was to prevent further harassment and threats towards residents, staff or agents.
On 30 October 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident and asked if it could meet to agree a list of works. Once done, it could order materials and labour to carry out the repairs, but it said the resident needed to behave in line with the injunction. It went on to explain that once the works were agreed, it would arrange to move the resident and her family, in to temporary accommodation. In addition, as external wall insulation was being carried out in the resident’s street, it wanted to ensure it formed part of the works. An appointment was made for 16 November 2020.
The resident moved in to temporary accommodation on 18 January 2021. A BACS payment of £375 was paid to the resident on the same day, made up of £10 daily living allowance per day and £5 laundry allowance per day (25 days) as there was no washing machine in the temporary accommodation. The landlord has provided details of the work done, while the resident moved out of the property. These included:
1. Replacing the kitchen door to the living room, painting the frame and filling it.
2. Replacing and painting the kitchen door to the outhouse.
3. Full kitchen replacement.
4. Repair to outhouse ceiling.
5. Damp works as per the survey.
6. Skirting board removed, screed to floor, skirting board refixed.
7. Survey in bathroom to determine cause of “slow to drain away”.
8. Paint to window wall in bathroom following external wall insulation works.
9. Replacement of cupboard doors on landing.
10. Bedroom flooring overboard with ply.
The resident moved back into the property on 12 February 2021.
On 17 August 2021, the resident reported a leak in the bathroom. The landlord attended on the same day and a repair was carried out to resolve the leak. However, the resident was unhappy with the situation and raised a further complaint on 7 September. Within this, the resident expressed concerned that there were “repairs outstanding” at the property and a problem with damp, there was still a pest infestation and that she no longer wished to live at the property given all the repairs issues.
On 21 September 2021, the landlord confirmed it would send a damp proof assessor and a surveyor to inspect the issue and a damp survey was carried out on 27 September 2021.
On 13 October 2021, the landlord sent the resident its stage one response to her complaint. It said:
1. The only sign of damp in the property was from the wall in the kitchen. The survey advised this was due to the wall being recently replastered and it would still be drying out. There were no other signs of damp in the property, so no further works were required.
2. As none of the pipes were leaking there was no requirement to replace these. However, if the resident did identify any leaks, she should notify the customer service team accordingly.
3. The only works inside the property that were outstanding was the repair raised 24 August to paint the patch on the ceiling following the leak from the bathroom. The leak was repaired on 17 August and the order was to cover the stain on the ceiling. However, the resident had refused these works on 22 September so the order was cancelled and the resident had said she did not want the leak covered up.
The resident called the landlord on 3 December and said she wanted a call back about her complaint going to stage two. It is unclear what transpired; however, it is noted that the resident’s complaint was escalated.
On 6 December, the resident called the landlord to express concern about moving from the property. She said that her application to go on the local lettings system had been approved but the landlord was making it “impossible” by asking for letters. Discussions also took place around the damp and the landlord advised that no works were recommended following the survey. The resident disagreed and terminated the call.
Pest control visited the property on 7 December 2021 in response to the resident’s report in August 2021 that there were still signs of infestation. Bait trays were left and the operative agreed to visit the property the following week to check for signs of activity. A recommendation had been made in relation to “proofing issues” to the floorboards within the boiler cupboard.
On 15 December 2021, the landlord sent its stage two response to the complaint. It said:
1. It noted the resident wanted the complaint escalated because:
  1. There were repairs outstanding in the property even though she moved out for a prolonged period so these issues could be resolved.
  2. There was a pest infestation in the property.
  3. She wanted to move and did not want any more repairs carried out.
2. It wished to apologise if the resident felt unheard and there were some minor works outstanding and this had caused distress. It also recognised a delay in escalating the complaint to stage two, for which it apologised. It offered £500 compensation made up of:
  1. Delay in escalating the complaint: £100.
  2. Minor repairs outstanding: £400 – that being some further investigation to the party wall and painting to the kitchen ceiling.
3. While the leak could not have been foreseen, it recognised the frustration caused to the resident as a result; and the compensation was in respect of this.
4. It had visited the property on 8 December 2021, to discuss the complaint and to look at the repairs she was unhappy with, including staining on the ceiling. It said this was due to a leak that was resolved and it had agreed to repaint as part of its stage one response but the resident was not happy with that.
5. It was noted there were some minor repairs that needed to take place, but the resident wanted to focus on moving. She was invited though, at any point, to contact the landlord and ask for the repairs to be carried out. It recommended that if she did not move within six months it should progress with the repair works.
6. It had works to carry out on 14 January 2022 to the pointing on the external walls but the resident did not need to be in for that repair.
7. In terms of pests, the resident had confirmed the baiting programme had started and it took a minimum of 21 days from start to finish to ensure all the pests had been removed.
8. In terms of bidding on properties, it said her Home Choice application had been amended and she was awarded band B. She was awarded a 3 bed need but would still be responsible for any under occupation charge. She was advised to make sure she had ticked her application for a local connection and was able to bid for any properties which were suitable for her needs. It said the resident had confirmed she was happy with this as her resolution.
On 17 December 2021, pest control visited the resident’s property. It was reported that bait had been taken from the trays in the loft space and the boiler cupboard. It advised that a further check would be conducted the following week, but that the floorboards in the airing cupboard needed “urgent attention”.
A week later, on 24 December 2021, pest control visited again. It was reported that while the inspection was conducted, the operative had been “verbally abused” throughout. There was no sign of infestation, but on explaining this to resident she began to “get aggressive” and all staff left the property immediately.
On 7 January 2022, the resident had asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage three and when the landlord spoke with her it said:
1. It could offer mediation or a panel review to try and resolve the complaint.
2. It would work with this service if it investigated the complaint.
3. In the meantime, it wanted to understand what more it could do, as she had said the issues were impacting her mental health.
The resident had said her main focus was wanting to move and she was satisfied issues with her banding had been resolved and she was bidding on properties. She felt £500 compensation was not enough, because she had spent money on blinds and decorating. She felt her only option was to move, but she would lose the money she spent on the property.
The landlord said, that in addition to the £500 already paid, it would:
1. Pay for the cost of the blinds, but would need to see a receipt. It had been sent a photo of a receipt before but it could not be read clearly, so this should be resent.
2. In recognition of moving costs, at the point she moved it could offer a one off payment of £500 or provide help and support in helping her move her belongings. This was not something it normally offered to tenants.
It added that it had found some outstanding works were needed at the property and it noted it was frustrating for the resident. However, it noted that the resident would not allow all works to be done. It acknowledged that that on 13 January 2022 the resident emailed about the colour of the pipe work and it said a separate response would be sent to that, by 20 January 2022.
It asked the resident to let it know if she would consider one of the following options:
1. The additional compensation it had offered.
2. Mediation with an independent mediator to try and find a resolution.
3. A panel review with an independent director and someone from its tenancy panel.
The landlord and the resident discussed her outstanding concerns on 11 January 2022. The landlord subsequently wrote to the resident on 13 January 2022 to set out what had been agreed. It said:
1. A complaint had been made about, pest issues, wanting to move property and ongoing works, and it responded to that on 15 December 2021. The following day, the resident accepted £500 compensation (which had been paid) and agreed to have repairs booked in, as well as a baiting programme. However, there were issues with the baiting programme, so the resident then did not agree to the works being carried out.
2. It was investigating what happened at the property, as it had been reported that the resident’s actions prevented work being done. It would notify her of the outcome of the investigation. In the meantime, she should continue to contact the Head of Repairs as she was coordinating works to be done, as liaising with other people may delay its response.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 January 2022, saying no pointing had been done, and attached some doorbell footage. She emailed on 18 January to also complain about the brickwork at the property and on 19 January about a wall being damp. She also said she was having her own surveyor look at the property on 15 February.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 January 2022, and said it had received four emails from her raising issues she had raised previously and it was sorry she was unhappy. It said it wanted to work with her and asked if she would consider mediation.
In an additional email sent the same day (19 January 2022), the landlord again referred to receiving multiple emails from the resident and summarised that there were three main points raised:
1. She was unhappy with the work completed on 14 January 2022.
2. She was concerned that the bricks were not treated properly before the cladding was done.
3. Cladding work was rushed and not completed properly and this was impacting her mental health.
The landlord went on to say someone was going to visit the property that day to look at the work done, but the resident had emailed on 18 January and said “stay away from the property”. Therefore, the inspection was cancelled. It said it had reviewed 545 photographs and it agreed the contractors should have rendered a section so it could be painted and completed. Therefore, it wanted to offer £25 compensation for that failure, and to be able to return to the property to complete works. It said, it would not need access to the inside of the property. It found the external works to the brickwork was done to an acceptable standard and was signed off by an external post inspection.
The landlord noted the resident wanted to move house but it explained that other than ensuring she was on the correct band, there was nothing more it could do. It encouraged her to bid on properties and it said it would support her with a move as previously offered. It noted she wanted advice on Help to Buy and said someone would contact her separately about that.
The landlord said the pipework was fit for purpose, so would not be changed for decorative reasons, but the resident had the option to paint it. It would not refund the cost of the decoration but would refund the cost of the blinds. However, it needed a clearer image of the receipt. The landlord reminded the resident of its 13 January 2022 email, asking her to consider:
1. Additional compensation offered in the email.
2. Mediation with an independent mediator to try and find a resolution.
3. A panel review with an independent director and someone from the tenancy panel to review the complaint.
The landlord then explained the resident was sending lots of emails, sometimes within minutes of each other and sometimes about the same issue. It noted her frustration, but said “when we have tried to resolve an issue you have then asked us not to”. It went on to say, “we accept, that at times we have not got things right, and again I am sorry for this.” It explained that sending multiple emails over a short period of time made it very difficult to manage her issues, and its service standard was to reply to all correspondence within five working days. It asked that she reduce the amount of emails being sent, try and to tell it only once about an issue, and only reply if she felt it had not offered a response (this would usually be within 5 working days). It asked the resident to take this as a warning, otherwise if may have to restrict contact with her.
On 19 January 2022, the resident responded by saying she was accepting nothing from the landlord. Later the same day, she further emailed complaining about having to ask for permission to have Sky and referred to the cladding not stopping damp at the property.
The resident told the landlord on 20 and 21 January 2022, that there had been an issue with the electric sockets, which the landlord offered to address. She also wanted it to address the brickwork issues, asbestos, damp proof course and remove cladding.
The landlord emailed the resident on 20 January, and said:
1. Since sending her an email the day before, the resident had sent five emails and also spoken with someone.
2. She had agreed for an external inspector to attend the property on 29 January 2022 at 10am, and assumed this was still suitable.
3. The resident was sending emails about different repairs and suggesting action to take, but then saying she did not wish for the repairs to be carried out. This was making it difficult to manage and understand what resolution was sought.
4. It had continued to offer mediation but the resident had not said if this was something she would accept.
5. While the resident had said she wished to be moved, she had also expressed dissatisfaction with a number of repairs. Therefore, it felt the best thing to do was to go through all the repairs and issues raised since she had moved in to the property, and establish what was outstanding.
6. A letter would be sent with its full response by 31 January 2022 and would include the recent issues raised.
7. With the electric sockets, the appropriate leads had to be used and an extension cable should never be plugged in to an extension cable. It said it could arrange for an electric check to be done urgently if the resident was concerned, and it asked her to let it know if this was needed.
8. The resident had been given a warning about the volume of correspondence she was sending; including, the volume of emails being sent and telling it multiple times about the same repair. It said that despite this warning, she had continued to contact it excessively. Therefore, it was implementing the following measures, which would be reviewed after 12 months:
  1. To contact a specific person if there were any issues, and the resident was provided with their email address.
  2. The resident had been asked to email no more than once a week. The landlord said it would respond to an email within five working days. It provided an emergency repair contact telephone number, if needed.
9. The landlord explained that if it had no more instances of excessive contact these measures would be removed. If the resident wished to appeal the decision, to contact the landlord by letter or email within 14 days and it would be considered by an independent member of the executive team.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 21 January 2022, referring to a telephone call the previous day. It provided details of the person investigating an incident at the property on 24 December 2021. It explained that any other contact with the landlord needed to be by way of the measures put in place.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 22 January 2022, asking if it received her email about taking her complaint to stage three.
On 26 January 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident, saying she had sent a number of emails since its last email of 19 January 2022. It had addressed a query raised by the resident about installing Sky, and said her other issues would be responded to on 31 January. It also reminded the resident of the contact measures that were in place and asked her to ensure that she replied directly to any questions it asked. Lastly, it asked that the resident email no more than once a week in relation to a repair, unless it was an emergency. It would respond within 5 working days of receiving the email.
On the same day, the resident responded by saying she had not emailed since 21 January 2022 and she had rights under the “Consumer Act”.
The landlord sent a further stage two response to the complaint, on 31 January 2022. Within this, it acknowledged that not all of the resident’s concerns had been addressed within previous responses and it wished to apologise for this. It added that £500 had been offered previously, and it wished to offer the following:
1. A further £100 for its failure to always communicate in the best way with the resident.
2. £50 for the delay to the brickworks.
3. A further £100 for its additional failings in how it dealt with the complaint.
4. £500 when the resident moved out, to pay for moving costs.
5. Reimbursement of the cost of the resident’s blinds.
6. Mediation to help achieve resolution if the resident remained unhappy with what had been offered to date.
The resident responded the same day and said a damp report had been done; however, no work was to be done until she had moved from the property, as a damp proof course should have been put in when she moved in. She said there was asbestos at the property and had requested a copy of the pointing work done to the bricks that had been damaged behind the cladding. She did not agree with the stage two response because the damp was not minor and the brickwork under the cladding was not minor.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 February 2022, and said having read its 31 January 2022 letter:
1. Nothing was mentioned about the cladding – it was all about the bricks being repointed under the cladding.
2. She had asked for a copy of the certificate from where the walls had the damp proof course on the inside of the property.
3. It was compensating her for the blinds but not money spent on decorating or flooring.
4. She was going to carry on until she was happy in a home.
Following a call with the resident on 3 February 2022, the landlord sent an email confirming that the resident:
1. Did not want further repairs or surveys carried out.
2. Was happy for its independent consultant to attend the property to meet a damp surveyor that she had instructed.
3. Was happy for it to appoint a mediator with a view to moving things forward.
4. Still wished to move, but that she was struggling to find properties.
5. It would get the neighbourhood team to contact her.
6. Did not need to be concerned about the asbestos floor tiles, as they had been assessed as in good condition, and were not a risk. It would arrange for its asbestos surveyor to call the resident to explain this.
7. Understood that pre- works would have been carried out to the brickwork before the external wall installation was installed to make sure that it was suitable to be fixed to the brickwork.
8. Understood it had agreed to pay for her blinds/decorating if receipts were provided.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 February 2022, to complain that she had not been able to move house yet and it was affecting her mental health, so she had been signed off from work, for a further six weeks.
The landlord then wrote to the resident the same day about the living room floor tiles, and confirmed that they had been surveyed and found to be in good condition with “little likelihood” of fibres being released. In addition the floor tiles were screed over and as a result, release was “unlikely to be a hazard under normal conditions”. The resident responded the same day and commented that she had been exposed to broken tiles when she and her family moved in. The landlord then sent the resident details of a mediator to approve.
A damp survey arranged by the resident, dated 15 February 2022, said its findings were, there were higher than average moisture meter readings in the walls. That work amounting to £1,384 needed carrying out, including removing plasterwork, skirting boards and inserting a damp proof course.
On 16 February 2022, the resident emailed the landlord asking about other reports previous residents had made to it, about issues with the walls at the property and asbestos floors. In emails exchanged on 17 and 18 February 2022, the resident told the landlord that she accepted its response in resolution of the complaint. However, she referred to now knowing the property did not have a damp proof course and she wanted to move before the internal wall went black with mould. The landlord responded that it was contacting the contractor that did the work to understand why it had failed. It was sorry and noted the resident’s frustration, and said “I know that you have said that you do not want us to do any work, however please let us know if anything gets worse as then we would need to come in and carry this out. If you let me know, if you change your mind and want the works undertaken.”
Emails exchanged between the landlord and the resident dated 23 February 2022, confirm an agreement was reached, in terms of resolving the complaint. The original as per 31 January 2022 remained, and in addition it wished to offer:
1. £520 for the resident’s blinds.
2. £800.00 for decorating costs – in addition to what was agreed in its stage two response.
The landlord accepted work needed to be done on the internal walls, but said the resident had said she wanted no further work carried out, except for brickwork repair. It again asked her to let it know if she changed her mind.
The resident replied the same day to confirm she was happy with the outcome and a payment of £1,570 was made on 23 February 2022.
On 9 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and asked when the bathroom was fitted and complained about corroded pipes and cracked tiles. The landlord asked that this was discussed the following day, at a planned mediation meeting.
On 10 March 2022, a mediation meeting took place, between the resident and landlord. The report produced from that meeting said:
1. The resident had been given a high banding and was bidding on properties, but it was taking time. The landlord agreed to see what further assistance it may be able to provide as the resident felt a move out of the area, was the only resolution to her situation.
2. Repairs the resident had reported included:
  1. New door frames.
  2. Damp in living room.
  3. Plug sockets.
  4. Brick work around gas meter box.
  5. New bathroom including moving the bath, a new shower and screen and tiling.
3. The landlord said it would carry out repair work, but not make home improvements to suit an individual’s standards. It agreed to look at:
  1. Damp in the living room.
  2. Plug sockets.
  3. Brick work around the gas meter box.
  4. Tiling in the bathroom.
4. The resident did not want the landlord to do any repairs in her property, however; had agreed to them doing the brick work around the gas meter box. The resident said repair work should have been done previously when the landlord had the opportunity. The landlord acknowledged that some of that was correct, and it had financially compensated accordingly.
5. The landlord suggested that a different contractor could be used for any repair work at the property.
In conclusion, it said an agreement could not be reached in terms of access being gained to do the repairs, other than the following:
1. To repair brick work around gas meter box and to see what other assistance it could provide to help the resident find a new property, but the resident to continue to bid on properties.
2. Cladding specification to be provided and the landlord to check in with the resident every six weeks.
On 14 March 2022, in communication with this service, the resident said, “I am happy I have all my money back, I just need a move now.”
On 25 March 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and asked if it could carry out the brick repairs. It explained that most of this would only take one day, aside from the application of render which would be done over approximately four days in small intervals to allow drying time. For health and safety reasons, whilst the work was being carried out at the front door, she would need to use the back door if possible. It asked the resident if she wanted the work done the following week, or in four weeks’ time. Later the same day, the resident said her daughter had Covid-19, so it would be best to do the work in four weeks’ time. The landlord confirmed it would be in touch nearer the time.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 and 8 April 2022, and said she felt Home Choice was “corrupt” as she had moved position within hours. She complained that she had seen a house in an area she liked, but she was not happy with her position/banding. The landlord responded and explained, “properties are allocated based on local connection and banding/ housing needs, it is not something we would be able to influence.”
The resident then sent another email on 8 April, to say work on her bathroom was going to cost £1,500, in order to get it to standard and that she was getting damp proof coursing put in shortly. She said she would be sending receipts to the landlord. The landlord responded on 13 April, and said it would carry out any damp works rather than the resident paying for it because of requirements concerning insurances and guarantees. It said it would not reimburse for work it had said it would do, and in the bathroom, she needed permission for alterations. It said it had sent her an alterations form.
There were a series of emails between the resident and the landlord on 28 April 2022. Within these, the resident advised that the plug sockets were not working. The landlord offered to attend the property; and advised that it had already offered to change the sockets, but this had been declined previously. It added that the offer remained. However, the resident declined stating that they had been looked at before, and she wanted the issue noted before she started a disrepair case.
The landlord also referred to the brickwork to the front of the property and said the workers were due to the return “the week after the bank holiday”. The resident confirmed that she would be away, but that it was convenient given that nobody would be there to use the doors. On 12 May 2022, the landlord confirmed the brickwork at the property had been replaced.
On 26 May 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. It attached a copy of its response letter dated 31 January 2022 and said that while it noted that the resident wished to move it was keen to complete the necessary repairs. It added that they could be arranged through a mediator, if needed. The resident responded the same day to decline the landlord’s offer.
On 8 July 2022, the resident told the landlord that she would agree to it doing damp proofing if a new bathroom and electric shower was plumbed in, as she was having issues with boiler pressure.
On 19 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord saying she needed to be moved as her OCD had got worse and she was spending beyond her means to be comfortable in a house she could not call home. She said furniture was going to cost more than the £500 offered. The landlord responded the same day and said it had asked the neighbourhood team to contact her about her application, and it would reassess the £500 offer, when she moved.
The landlord responded the same day and said in relation to the damp, it could carry out works as discussed previously and in the bathroom it could install a shower. It asked if this was something the resident wanted. The resident replied, and said that she could not agree to the works with her new furniture in situ. She added that they would have to be moved from the property again to facilitate the works.
On 22 July 2022, the landlord noted the resident did not want the work done, as she wanted to move; but said she was to let it know if she changed her mind. It also said it could move her out, while the work was being done.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The Tenancy Agreement

Under section 2.3.1 of the Tenancy Agreement the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property including:
1. Drains, gutters and external pipes (but not including cleaning gutters);
2. The roof;
3. External walls and doors of the house or flat,
4. Internal walls, skirting boards, doors and door frames, floors and ceilings (but not including the decorative finish to plasterwork);
Section 2.3.2 states that the landlord will keep in repair and working order the installations for room heating, water heating and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas and electricity, including:
1. basins, sinks, baths, toilets (but not the toilet seat), flushing systems and waste pipes;
2. Electrical wiring, gas pipes and water pipes;
3. Water heaters and fitted fires;
4. Sockets and light fittings.
Section 2.3.6 of the Tenancy Agreement states the landlord is “not responsible for infestations, including infestations of rodents and insects, unless it is due to our failure to comply with our repairing obligations set out in sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 above.”
The tenancy agreement under section 4.6 says, “For certain qualifying repairs which, if not carried out within a specified period, are likely to jeopardise your health, safety security, you have the right to compensation of £10 and a further £2 for each day that the work remains incomplete up to a maximum of a total of £50.”
Section 3.21 of the Tenancy Agreement says “You must allow us, our staff and contractors access to your home to:
1. Inspect the condition or use of your home;
2. Carry out repair, service or improvement work to your home or to a neighbouring property; and
3. Inspect service or repair any gas, electrical and water appliances in your home;
4. Check on your wellbeing; or
5. Provide support services to you.”

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s Customer Feedback Policy in 2020 set out what the landlord would regard as a complaint, and what matters would not be considered as a complaint; however, it did not provide details of how complaints would be investigated.
The landlord has provided its Guidance Note from 2020 that it says staff used to deal with complaints, called, “Dealing with Customer Feedback”. It says the first complaint stage was First Time Resolution, where there was a two day target for a complaint to be dealt with. It says, “The complainant must be informed that you are closing the complaint and with a full explanation as to why you are closing it. You can extend the deadline for a complaint at First Time Resolution, provided this has been communicated and agreed with the complainant at the time of the deadline extension.”
It goes on to say, “Where outstanding issues remain with a complaint or there requires managerial intervention, a case may be re-opened and further resolution sought. If the issue complained about is more complex or requires further investigation at a higher level, then the case should be escalated to Stage 1. If you have been unable to resolve the complaint as a First Time Resolution and feel that the case should be escalated to Stage 1, you must speak to the Level 2 Manager who will be responsible for investigation BEFORE you escalate the case.”
Finally, the Guidance Note says, “If the customer is still not happy with the outcome of the complaint at Stage 1, it can be progressed to Stage 2. However, this would only be where there is further evidence offered to support the complaint. The case should only be escalated by the Level 2 Manager that has dealt with the case and has agreed that the further evidence needs to be added and reviewed. If there is no further supporting evidence, we can advise the customer to go straight to The Ombudsman, omitting Stage 2 of the process. If a case is accepted as a Stage 2 complaint, the further evidence offered by the complainant will be reviewed by a Level 1 Director. In circumstances where there remains no resolution, a panel will review the case. The closed panel will consist of an independent Level 1 Director and a tenant representative. The panel may be attended by the complainant and is to be reviewed on a case by case basis.”
Under the Repairs and Maintenance policy:
1. The landlord will respond to emergencies within four hours.
2. Non-emergency appointments are based on availability and convenience to the resident, within 60 days.
The landlord’s pest management process says that if a pest issue is reported and the tenancy is less than six months old, the resident will be directed to the local authority or pest control.
The landlord’s Discretionary Compensation Policy says in terms of discretionary payments:
1. Minor impact – awards £50 – £100.
2. Moderate impact – awards £100 – £600.
3. Significant impact – awards £600 – £1,000.
4. Serious impact – awards £1,000+.

Assessment and Findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property 2020/21

The resident raised concerns with the condition of the property, before and after she moved in, in May 2020. From the evidence provided to this service, the resident’s initial concerns related to the cleanliness of the property. In response to the resident’s concerns, the voids supervisor arranged for the property to be cleaned. There was some confusion around whether or not the resident had been asked to leave the keys within a key safe; however, the contractor was unable to gain access and cleaning could not take place.
It was appropriate for the landlord to try to arrange for the property to be cleaned in response to the resident’s concerns. However, it is unclear why the property had not been cleaned prior to the viewing and the tenancy commencing. The landlord’s Empty Home Standards states that the property will be “thoroughly cleaned” after any void work has been completed. This includes wiping down all surfaces, sweeping and mopping floors, windows cleaned internally, baths, basins, toilets and bathroom fittings cleaned and free from lime scale. It is unclear if any void works were undertaken. However, on receipt of the resident’s concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate the matter further to ascertain why the property had not been cleaned in line with its Empty Homes Standards. Taking such action would have allowed the landlord to identify where things had gone wrong and to take action to prevent similar issues from occurring in the future.
In addition to the cleanliness of the property, the resident also raised additional concerns about the condition of the kitchen and that she had found a dead mouse when she removed the kitchen kick boards. The landlord appropriately arranged for the property to be cleaned in response to the resident’s concerns. However, when the cleaner arrived, there was an issue at the property, and the work could not be done.
Meanwhile, the resident began to express her dissatisfaction with the property and the landlord’s response to her concerns. It is noted that the relationship between both parties began to deteriorate and the landlord stated that the resident had been “aggressive”. The landlord also expressed concern that during a conversation the resident had not allowed it to explain the action that it was taking and what would be happening next.
The resident subsequently reported a leak. The date of the initial report is unclear; however, the landlord became aware of the situation on 20 May 2020. The evidence shows that the landlord appropriately arranged for this to be inspected and established that the leak was as a result of the washing machine being installed incorrectly. It is noted that the resident disputed this and considered that there was a long-standing leak. The resident also reported that:
1. A new kitchen or “substantial repairs” to the existing kitchen were required;
2. The drain outside the property was blocked.
The evidence provided to this service shows that the landlord arranged for the kitchen cupboard door to be repaired following the leak as it had been water damaged. The job was raised on 9 June and marked as completed on 22 June. However, it is unclear whether the works were completed as the repair logs show that “further work” was required to renew the back of the unit and the shelf. The notes within the repair logs are unclear; and as such it is not possible for this service to establish what work was undertaken by the landlord, and when. This is not suggestive of poor recording keeping as a whole, but the landlord may wish to consider issuing staff and contractors with a reminder that notes from inspections and attendances should be clear and unambiguous. Not only will this assist the landlord when reviewing the service it has provided, but it will also ensure that independent bodies, such as the Ombudsman, can fully understand what has transpired.
The landlord attended to clear the blockage within 2 days of the resident’s report, which was appropriate in the circumstances. On 19 June, a job was raised for a carpenter to attend the property as the floorboards were reported to be loose. The repair logs show that the area was inspected and it was established that plywood and skirting materials would be required. An order was raised accordingly; however, the job was cancelled by the resident. It was noted that the resident wished to have the works assessed by her own surveyor and that she did not wish for the landlord’s contractor to carry out any work.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to ensure that the floors were inspected and works raised accordingly, it is unclear why this was not identified and rectified while the property was void. The landlord’s Empty Homes Standard states that floors will be “even and free from trip hazards”.
At the beginning of July, the resident expressed concern about damp within the property. The repairs logs show that the landlord appropriately commissioned a damp survey soon after the resident’s report was received and this was undertaken on 23 July. Some recommendations were made for works and the landlord agreed to replace the kitchen to “resolve the minor issues of damp” highlighted by the surveyor’s report. As such an offer of temporary accommodation was made so that the landlord could undertake the necessary repairs. This was a reasonable response by the landlord. While it is noted that the works would have been the cause of further disruption, the landlord was acting in line with its obligations under the tenancy agreement by trying to ensure that the necessary repairs could be completed. Its offer to move the resident to temporary accommodation to mitigate the inconvenience caused to her was reasonable.
The landlord continued to try and work with the resident, in order to carry out repairs at the property. Some were completed, but others could not be, due to the resident declining the work. It is clear from her correspondence with the landlord, that the resident wanted to be moved immediately, rather than have repairs done at the property. While the resident’s frustration with the situation is understood, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to try to ensure that repairs within the property could be completed. It is also noted that the landlord found it necessary to obtain an injunction against the resident in October 2020 as a result of “harassment and threats of violence” towards landlord staff and its agents. The evidence shows that this complicated matters and affected its ability to prioritise the required repairs.
The resident subsequently moved to temporary accommodation in January 2021 and the landlord completed the required works in just under four weeks.In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord paid the resident a daily living allowance. It is noted that the amount which was paid by the landlord was in excess of that stated in its policy.
The evidence provided to this service shows that the landlord responded promptly to the concerns that were raised by the resident after the tenancy began. The evidence also demonstrates that the landlord acted appropriately in arranging surveys and inspections and agreeing to repairs. However, as detailed above, it is unclear why some of the repairs issues raised by the resident were not identified by the landlord when the property was void. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the landlord’s void or pre-let inspection; however, given the resident’s reports – and that the repairs were not in dispute – it does not appear that the property met the landlord’s Empty Homes Standard.
When the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns, it would have been reasonable to identify this and to take steps to put things right. In doing so, the landlord could have acknowledged the disappointment and upset that was caused to the resident on discovering several issues on moving into the property. If the landlord had acknowledged this, it could have also taken steps to understand what had gone wrong in this case and considered what could be done to avoid similar issues occurring in the future. As such, there was a missed opportunity by the landlord to put things right with the resident and to learn from the complaint.
The resident raised her concerns as a complaint in July 2020. The landlord issued a response to her concerns on 29 July 2020. Within its response, the landlord appropriately focussed on the action it had taken so far, and what needed to happen for the repairs to be completed. However it also acknowledged some of the inconvenience the resident was caused and offered her £200 compensation as it took “longer than it should have” for it to agree to replace the kitchen. The amount was credited to the resident’s rent account as it was in arrears at the time. The landlord also offered to reimburse the cost of blinds the resident had bought, but could not use, on provision of receipts. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge some of the inconvenience that the resident was caused. However, given the above, and that the issues reported by the resident should reasonably have been identified while the property was void, the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate in the circumstances. The Ombudsman has therefore made a series of orders aimed at putting things right.

Repairs 2021/22

On 17 August 2021 the resident reported a leak in her bathroom. The repair logs show that the cause of the leak was “corroded pipework” and the pipe had burst as a result. The repair was carried out on the same day. It is acknowledged that the resident was frustrated by the leak occurring; however, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the impact on the resident and explained that the leak could not reasonably have been foreseen.
The landlord appropriately raised a job for the paintwork to be repaired following the leak at the end of August 2021. However, the resident refused the works and raised concern about staining in the kitchen area, and damp within the property. The resident also requested that all pipework within the property be replaced.
In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord appropriately arranged a further damp survey. This took place on 27 September 2021. The Ombudsman has been provided with a copy of the survey report. The report sets out that there was no sign of mould to the walls and ceilings within either the from bedroom, landing, rear bedroom or rear bathroom. The surveyor did note that there were “minor signs of dampness to the walls” within the front lounge. However, it was noted that the walls were (then) recently replastered.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 October with the results of the survey. It explained the findings and set out that the only works outstanding were for the affected areas following the leak to be repaired. In response to the resident’s request for the pipework at the property to be changed, the landlord appropriately explained that it would not replace all the pipework “without cause”. The landlord’s obligation under the tenancy agreement is to repair and maintain existing pipework. There is no obligation on the landlord to replace pipework unless it cannot be repaired. As such, while the reasons for the resident’s request are acknowledged, the landlord’s response was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord continued to liaise with the resident as she remained concerned about damp. By December 2021, the landlord agreed to investigate the plastering on the party wall within the lounge further. It was also agreed that pointing work to the gas box area would be carried out and the pest infestation would be investigated further. This was appropriate in the circumstances. While it is noted that the resident was reluctant for further works to go ahead and that she wished to move property, the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and in line with its obligations under the tenancy agreement.
It is noted that there were some issues with the repointing work in January 2022. The landlord had advised the resident that the works were due to take place on a particular day. While the resident was not at home, she observed through her door bell camera that no works were carried out. The landlord subsequently acknowledged that the works had not taken place as agreed, apologised and offered the resident compensation. This has been addressed further below.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s position regarding damp and raised concern that the EWI works were not carried out properly. The landlord agreed to carry out repointing works and arranged for an independent damp survey to take place in February 2022. In relation to the resident’s concerns about the EWI works, the landlord agreed to forward copies of the certificates for the works demonstrating that the cavity wall was dry before the insulation was fitted. However, it added that the independent surveyor could inspect this area too.
The survey in February 2022 confirmed that there was damp to the internal wall and several recommendations were made. It is unclear why this was not identified by the landlord sooner. However, it is noted that the landlord appropriately agreed to undertake the works – along with the repairs that had been reported in the previous months. The resident declined the landlord’s offer and stated that her wish was to move instead. The evidence provided to this service shows that in the months that followed the landlord continued to reiterate its offer, but the resident declined.
In response to the resident’s concerns in 2021 and 2022, the landlord made a series of offers of compensation in relation to the repairs issues. A final offer was made in February 2023. However, the compensation offered between 2021 and 2023 included:
1. £400 as repairs were outstanding at the property in September 2021 (investigation into the party wall; and painting to the kitchen ceiling.)
2. £50 for the delay to the brickworks in January 2022.
3. £100 for the failure to communicate “in the best way” with the resident.
4. £500 to cover moving costs when the resident moved out of the property.
5. £520 reimbursement for the resident’s blinds.
6. £800 for decoration works the resident had undertaken.
7. A week’s rent in the amount of £98.01 which it agreed to pay when she moved (on 23 January 2023).
The landlord appropriately identified delays and failings in how it had responded to the resident’s concerns and reports of repair. It was therefore reasonable for it to offer compensation aimed at putting things right. The overall offer that was made by the landlord was proportionate based on the evidence that has been provided to this service. However, the manner in which the offers were communicated was somewhat confusing. In addition, in the circumstances it would have been reasonable for the landlord to make its offer based on the impact to the resident as a result of its failings, in line with its policy. Framing the offers in such a manner would have helped the resident, and this service, understand what factors had been taken into account when the offers of compensation were made. A recommendation has been made in relation to this.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a mouse infestation.

In response to the resident’s report of a dead mouse at the property, the landlord arranged for pest control to attend. The job was raised on 3 June 2020, with a completion date of 10 August.
It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for the property to be inspected by pest control. However, it is unclear why it did not inspect the property itself in July 2020, in line with its obligations under the tenancy agreement, to establish whether there were any access holes that needed to be blocked. This was a failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter, and a missed opportunity to try to put things right. Conducting such an inspection would have enabled it to ensure that there were no repair issues leading to infestation, and would have provided the resident with reassurance that it was taking her concerns seriously.
Pest control commenced a baiting programme towards the end of July 2020; however, the resident prevented it from completing the works during the second attendance. The resident advised that she did not wish for pest control to fill the holes with “foam” for the mice to chew through as there were “millions of holes” with foam “bulging out of them”. It is acknowledged that pest control were prevented from completing the baiting programme at this time as a result of the resident’s refusal. However, in the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to visit the property itself and ascertain what repairs it could complete, without the use of “foam”, to assist with the baiting programme. That the landlord did not take such action was a further failing in its response to the resident’s reports of an infestation.
The resident reported further signs of infestation in August 2021. The repairs logs show that a job was raised for a bricklayer to fill holes “to stop vermin accessing the property” on 24 August 2021. It is unclear what transpired following this. It is noted that the job was rescheduled for 6 October, but it unclear whether the job was completed and if any holes were filled. This was a failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter. The landlord was aware that the resident had been reporting an infestation for some time. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for it to prioritise any repairs and ensure that a baiting programme was completed without further delay.
The records show that the landlord made a further attempt to address the issue in December 2021 and ordered a full bait programme. This was appropriate given that the issue was ongoing. However, it is unclear why action was not taken sooner. The landlord was aware that the issue was left unresolved in July 2020; works to fill holes in the brickwork were raised in August 2021; and it is therefore unclear why pest control were not instructed again until December 2021.
While pest control attended, it is noted that an altercation ensued and that no works could be undertaken. The landlord appropriately investigated the incident in January 2022, and provided the resident with a caution in relation to her behaviour.
As such, while the landlord instructed pest control on two occasions with a view to eradicating the infestation, the evidence provided to this service does not show that it acted appropriately overall. It is unclear why the landlord did not inspect the property itself and take steps towards blocking any access holes or routes in 2020. In addition, no action was taken to resolve the issue between July 2020 and August 2021; and it is unclear if access holes were filled at any time between August and October 2021. In addition, pest control were not instructed again until December 2021 – nearly 17 months after it first attended in 2020. While it is acknowledged that the works by pest control were hampered by the resident’s conduct, and refusal to allow certain works, the evidence provided to this service shows that the landlord failed to deal with the situation appropriately.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

From May 2020, the resident complained about the condition of the property on a number of occasions, and also conjoined her local councillor in on her complaint, in July 2020. Her complaint was about the condition of the property, pests and as a result, she wanted to move.
The landlord did respond to the initial complaint on 21 May as well as 29 May 2020. Therefore, it seems to have attempted to resolve matters by way of First Time Resolution, in line with its practice at the time. It also sent a response on 23 July 2020, and referred to a visit that had taken place at the property on 21 July, in order to agree what work was needed at the property.
A formal response to the complaint was issued on 29 July 2020. Within this, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the issues the resident had experienced and made a series of offers aimed at putting things right and progressing the repairs.
The resident continued to express further concerns with the property in 2021, and a further response was sent on 21 September 2021. This was under the First Time Resolution stage. It is unclear why the landlord dealt with the complaint in this way given that the complaint had been raised several months earlier. Nevertheless, it then issued a stage one response on 13 October 2021. It said it had provided a response on 10 October (the landlord has confirmed this was a typo and it actually meant its 21 September 2021 response). The response only addressed the issue of repairs and damp, but did not address the matter of pest infestation. As the resident remained unhappy, the landlord agreed to escalate the complaint to stage two on 6 December 2021, and apologised for not doing so sooner.
On 15 December 2021, the landlord sent its stage two response to the complaint about repairs, pests and that the resident wanted to move from the property. It appropriately acknowledged that it had delayed in escalating the complaint and offered £100 compensation; and additional compensation for other issues. It then issued a further response on 31 January 2022, which it also referred to as being part of stage two.
The landlord had a challenge in this case, handling the volume of emails from the resident. It did attempt to manage contact with the resident and also warned her about her behaviour, in order to try and improve communication and ensure the issues she complained of, could be actioned. It also suggested ways to try and resolve matters, such as visiting the property to agree a list of repairs, as well as proposing mediation.
While it may have been difficult for the landlord to identify what constituted a complaint and what were reports, the landlord did not comply with its own Complaints Policy for dealing with a complaint, or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It was apparent that the resident remained unhappy after the informal part of the complaints process had been exercised; however, it took several months to treat the matter as a formal complaint, and it is unclear why.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint was not in accordance with its policy and was confusing. The complaint correspondence did not state what stage of the procedure the complaint was at, two stage 2 responses were issued and the resident had queried escalating her complaint to a third stage, which the landlord failed to address.
The landlord has told this service that it appreciates the wording used in its complaints process at the time was confusing. It has tried to explain how it sought to address the complaints, but this explanation does not help to clarify its approach. The landlord has said it has since reviewed its complaints process and it is now in line with the Code. However, having reviewed the process on its website, it is not clear that the process is in accordance with the Code. It has therefore been recommended that the landlord reviews its policy in further detail and takes action to ensure that it is Code compliant.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged the failings in its complaint handling and made an offer of £200 compensation. Having considered the complaint handling as a whole, the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation was proportionate in the circumstances. The delay at stage two was minimal and the landlord did continue to communicate with the resident, showing it was committed to trying to resolve the issues she was experiencing. The confusing aspects of the landlord’s policy, did not in itself, affect the resident, as she received a response to her concerns. It did not prevent her from liaising with the landlord, in order to try and reach an agreement.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s criteria for allocating housing, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
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 at the property in 2020/2021.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the resident’s reports of repairs at the property in 2021/2022.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of a mouse infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The assessment and decision related to home choice bandings, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
The resident found it necessary to report several repairs soon after viewing and moving to the property. While the landlord took steps to arrange the necessary repairs, it failed to acknowledge that many of the issues reported should have been resolved before the tenancy began. The landlord also failed to acknowledge the upset and disappointment that was caused to the resident as a result.
Between 2021 and 2022 the landlord did take steps to respond to the repairs issues raised. However, there were some delays in completing repairs and the resident’s concerns regarding damp were not identified until an independent survey took place. The landlord appropriately accepted that there were some occasions when it could have done more to investigate when further repairs were needed at the property; however, it had difficulties accessing the property to complete all work and did offer to rectify the issues and paid proportionate compensation to the resident, at the time.
The landlord arranged for pest control to visit the property so that a baiting programme could be completed. The resident prevented pest control from completing the baiting programme; however, the landlord’s handling of the matter was not appropriate. The landlord failed to inspect the property and assess access holes for itself; and left the matter unresolved without any planned action between July 2020 and August 2021.
The landlord did not adhere to its own complaints process, or the Code. However, the landlord appropriately apologised for the delay in dealing with the complaint and offered compensation which was proportionate. Although the landlord has made some changes to its complaints policy, it does not appear to be Code compliant and a recommendation has been made accordingly.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident a total of £550, comprised of:
  1. £350 for the inconvenience caused by the condition of the property when it was let.
  2. £200 for the inconvenience caused by its handling of the mouse infestation.
3. Review its process in relation to void properties, in particular ensuring that they are thoroughly and appropriately inspected and that they meet the Empty Homes Standard prior to being re-let.
4. Issue repairs staff with a reminder that where reports of infestation are received, an inspection should be carried out to ensure that there are no access holes or repairs issues leading to/contributing to the infestation.

Recommendations

Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Review its complaints process in order to check it is in line with the Code.
2. Review its record keeping practices and ensure repairs staff and contractors are reminded of the importance of keeping clear notes.