Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (202121691)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121691

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

26 June 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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding:
1. The condition of the property when it was let to her.
2. The offer of a temporary decant while works were being carried out.
3. The personal items that were damaged while the work was taking place.
4. The related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy which commenced on 26 April 2021. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The property is described as a three-bedroom semi-detached house.
The resident has informed this service that she is a breast cancer survivor. Her son has medical conditions such as anxiety and anxiety deficit hyperactivity disorder. In addition, he is known to the child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS).
The landlord’s new tenancy visit procedure says that it will carry out a visit at the beginning of the tenancy to assess the property condition and to tackle issues quickly.
The landlord’s housing occupation standard states that:
1. Properties will be safe, secure, clean and free from potential hazards.
2. Inspections and tests will be carried out to ensure that gas services are safe before its residents move in.
3. It may not always redecorate walls. However, the standard of the walls must be suitable to receive wall paper.
4. The floors should be free of infestation and heating should be available in the living and bedrooms.
The landlord’s plastering works information available online advises that when carrying out plaster works dust will be created and that this cannot be avoided. There will be disruption as different trades will need to access the property at various times. Dust sheets and floor protectors will be used and at the end of each day, the property will be cleaned.
The landlord’s decant policy states that dependent on the individual circumstances it will assess whether a decant to temporary accommodation is required. It will consider the resident’s needs alongside the work to be carried out to minimise disruption to the resident. Furthermore, it will take steps to maintain accommodation while improvement works take place.
The landlord’s corporate complaints feedback procedure has two formal stages. At both stages, the landlord will respond within 20 working days.

Scope of complaint.

The resident has informed us that she and her family have medical conditions that was impacted by the condition of the property. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a determinantal impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Summary of events

While the property was empty, the landlord carried out a large number of repairs including testing the gas appliance. It also noted that the guttering required repair. The resident viewed the property on 19 April 2021. The landlord’s record of the accompanied viewing is not detailed. The viewing form noted that repairs were not required to the kitchen, living room, hall, stairs, landing, bathroom or bedrooms and a decorating allowance was agreed for those room. The decorating allowance included an additional £20 to bring the total allowance to £250. The viewing form states that ‘decorating steam strippers are not to be used to remove wallpaper. In the event, that a steamer is used and the plaster is dislodged any work to correct this will be rechargeable.’ The viewing form is not signed by the officer carrying out the viewing or by the resident.
The landlord’s records show that on 21 April 2021, an appointment was made for 26 April 2021 to turn on and test the gas appliances. This is shown as completed on 1 May 2021.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 4 May 2021. It recorded that scaffolding was required to carry out work to the hip and ridge of the guttering. The works were awarded a priority B status. The guttering was cleaned on 31 May 2021 and the following works were also undertaken: The damp proof course, flashing and skirt was repointed and the roof tiles that had slipped were renewed.
Other repairs were also raised on 10 May 2021, to screed and renew the floorboards and to repair the fractured brickwork. The submission from the landlord does not state which rooms the repairs were to be carried out to. The record is showing as completed on 26 May 2021. It was noted that the resident was having surgery for breast cancer on 29 June 2021.
The resident called the landlord on 14 May 2021 to report that she could smell urine coming from the floorboards. She requested a call back from the housing manager (HM) as she had contacted the repairs service who had informed her that they could not take action.
The floorboards were inspected and it was agreed that the affected floorboards would be replaced. The records show that work started on 20 May 2021 and was completed on 21 May 2021.
The resident reported surface water pooling in the garden. She advised that she had noticed the water during the viewing of the property and that as the voids team were attending the next day, that they look at it at the same time.
On 20 May 2021, an operative reported that the soffit, fascia and guttering to the property was in poor condition. On 26 May 2021 an order was raised to remedy large cracks on the bedroom wall and landing. An appointment was raised for 6 July 2021 and the records show that it was completed that day.
On 4 June 2021 and 9 June 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to provide her with a form with assistance with maintaining the garden and for assistance with getting two rooms internally decorated.
The landlord raised a repair on 10 June 2021 to renew the brickwork over the gate and to rebond the fractured brickwork. This repair was completed on 2 February 2022.
On the same day (10 June 2021) the landlord chased its internal asset team regarding prioritising the decoration allowance advising that the property was not in excellent condition. Also, the resident had not been able to prep the walls or ceiling for decoration, neither had she been able to complete the plastering work.
The landlord raised an order on 6 July 2021 to plaster the entire property and to decorate the living room, bedroom, bath, toilet, hall and staircase. The work was completed by end of October 2021.
The landlord’s records noted on 7 July 2021 that:
1. The resident had accepted the property as she had to move urgently. She had advised that at the time she did not realise the condition of the property. It had plaster coming off the walls, was damp, smelt of urine, defective guttering and a defective wall in the garden. The property should not have been let to her in the condition that it was in.
2. During a conversation with a member of the asset team, the resident had said that she had used a steamer when removing the wall paper. This was against its guidance. It had authorised plastering works to the property and it would check with its contractor if the works to the property could be bought forward.
The resident chased the plastering works on 4 August 2021 and 6 August 2021. She advised that the current condition of the property was affecting both her and her son’s mental health. The resident requested to be decanted whilst the work was taking place. On 9 August 2021, the resident further advised that she could not open the upstairs windows as insects were entering the property and this could affect her son’s hypersensitivity. Furthermore, once the plastering works started, the windows would need to be opened and this may have a negative impact on her son.
The resident chased the plastering works on 13 August 2021 and on 18 August 2021. The resident advised of her dissatisfaction with the attitude of the project manager regarding the plastering to be carried out to the bedroom. She advised that he had said that only one wall would be replastered, rather than the whole room. The resident also said that she was going to make contact with Environmental Health as she could not remain in the property.
Later that day, (18 August 2021) the landlord agreed for the resident to be accommodated for two nights at a hotel from Wednesday 18 August 2021 to Friday 21 August 2021. Its records noted that the resident was a cancer survivor and she had a child with disabilities. The hotel booking was to allow the resident to be away from the property as she was finding the work disruptive. Also, the hotel was the closest one available and that the housing options team did not have access to any other temporary accommodation.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 August 2021 to advise that she could not return to the property over the weekend. In response, the landlord advised that the hotel booking would not be extended and that the resident should try and make one room liveable. The resident spoke to a group manager regarding the extension of the temporary accommodation on 23 August 2021.
On 25 August 2021, the HM chaser the asset team regarding the decoration to the property. He advised that substantial replastering had taken place and that the resident was about to undergo treatment. He requested that the work be completed before the resident returns home from the cancer treatment. It was noted that it was handling a complaint about disrepair.
The landlord’s contractor advised on 21 September 2021 that the guttering to the front and side of the property had been cleared. The landlord’s records show that an operative attended following a report that the guttering was blocked on 30 September 2021. He noted that the property required new fascia, capping and guttering and that this was the second time the property had been returned. The works to unblock the guttering were recorded as completed on 7 October 2021.
Towards the end of October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to:
1. Request an inspection as the plastering work was completed.
2. Chase the installation of the scaffolding to install the new soffit, fascia and guttering.
On 9 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord regarding its lack of response to her solicitor. Following conversation with the resident, the landlord raised a complaint on 18 November 2021. The complaint concerned:
1. Following a managed move, the resident could not move into the property as the heating was not working. This had caused distress to the resident.
2. Once the heating was connected, there was a strong smell of urine. The floorboards had to be removed, to get rid of the smell.
3. The walls in the property needed replastering. Consequently, she had to temporarily move into a hotel and then stay with her ex-partner.
4. Once the work was completed, her belongings were damaged, including her bed, by the landlord’s contractors. The contractors did not protect her belongings.
The landlord’s records show that on 23 November 2021 the housing options team advised that they had tried to undertake an assessment with the resident regarding support. However, the resident had advised that she did not need support and the outstanding issues concerned repairs. It was noted that the housing disrepair claim had been closed.
The resident chased the complaint response on 15 December 2021. In response, the landlord apologised and advised that they were waiting for information before they could reply.
The landlord responded at the first stage of the complaint procedure on 21 December 2021. It apologised for the delay in its response, explaining that it had to obtain information from multiple services before it could reply. A summary of the findings are:
1. Acknowledged that it had not identified prior to her moving in that the fused spur had not been connected for the boiler. This was completed on the 1 May 2021. It noted that temporary heating had been offered and refused and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
2. Once the radiators to the property was turned on the smell of urine was heightened. The floorboards to the property was changed in June 2021 and the smell should subside once the plastering was completed.
3. The wall coverings had been removed by the resident using a steamer and that if the steamer was not used correctly, it could damage the wall plaster. Furthermore, the resident had agreed on 5 August 2021 to remain at the property while the replastering works were completed as she did not want to live away from the property while the works were ongoing.
4. Prior to the complaint being made, the resident had not informed it or its contractors of any damage to her belongings.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 30 December 2021. She expressed that when she had moved into the property, she had not been offered alternative heating. Furthermore, once the heating was working, the property smelt of urine. The urine smell had affected her belongings such as her quilts, bedding and mattress. Though the floorboards were changed, the urine smell remained for weeks.
In addition, the resident disputed using a steamer to remove the wall paper. She advised that she had tried to remove the wall paper by hand and the plaster had fallen from the wall. She had contacted her MP who had said that the property was not liveable and her solicitor had advised the landlord to resolve the situation. She advised that she was a breast cancer survivor and she had a son who had special needs. Furthermore, there was a Section 22 on the property and the landlord had not offered her a decant to temporary accommodation. The personal assistant to the Director had organised for her to stay in a hotel for two nights and when she had tried to get it extended, the Council had said that they did not know anything about the booking. Therefore, she had to stay at her ex-partner’s property as her own property was a ‘complete bombsite.’ The resident explained that she was furious at how she had been treated and maintained that the property should not have been let in that condition with the broken guttering and blocked drains.
The resident advised that her preferred outcome was for the landlord to replace the items that were damaged.
On 4 January 2021 the housing options officer informed the landlord that the resident had advised that she did not need a support worker or advocacy support. The resident advised that she needed for the property and for her claim to be resolved.
The resident chased the complaint response on 28 January 2022. In response, the landlord on 31 January 2022 apologised for its delayed complaint response. It advised that it was waiting for more information before it could respond to her.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 7 February 2022. It apologised for its delayed complaint response advising it was waiting for information from other departments. A summary of the findings were:
1. It maintained that though the heating was not working when the resident moved in, it had offered alternative heating which was declined by the resident.
2. At the accompanied viewing on 19 April 2021, there were no major repairs identified in the property. The property met the minimum standard when it was let. It accepted that the property was not in a good condition therefore it had increased the decoration allowance to £250.
3. It explained that it offered a decoration allowance as it does not remove wallpaper from its empty properties. It maintained that the resident had used a steamer contrary to its guidance. However, it accepted that the plaster beneath the wallpaper did not meet the standard and agreed to renew the defective plaster in the property.
4. It confirmed that the resident did not need to be decanted from the property.
5. After the removal of the wallpaper, further works were identified. It discussed the carrying out of these works with the resident who advised that she did not want to move on a temporary basis whilst the works were progressed.
6. The resident had advised that she was accommodated in a hotel for two nights. However, it did not know who agreed to this and it was aware that the resident had stayed with an ex-partner.
7. It listed repairs that had been raised: pointing of brickwork, slabbing and retaining walls that would take place in the new financial year. Sofit boards, guttering to be renewed and gully drains to be unblocked. The resident was signposted to the repairs contact centre if she had other repairs to report.
8. Following its visit to her property in December 2021, there was no significant repair issues or smell of urine. It advised that the smell was of wet plaster and would reduce once the plastering was complete and had dried out.
9. It signposted the resident to the Council insurers for a claim for damages to be made for her belongings and that she should receive a response within 90 days to her claim.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised that this has been a difficult period for the resident having to move urgently to the current property whilst managing her cancer diagnosis. It is appreciated that the resident has been upset and distressed by the landlord’s handling of the repairs needed to the property. The resident’s feelings are understood and is not disputed that dealing with such situations is stressful. This investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s concerns in accordance with its policies and its obligations under the tenancy agreement.

The condition of the property when it was let to her.

The landlord’s records show that as part of the void process that it carried out repairs to the property. The resident undertook an unaccompanied viewing with the landlord before agreeing to accept the tenancy. The information contained in the viewing sheet provides limited information as it describes the condition of the rooms in the property as acceptable. This does not provide sufficient information about the condition of the property at the time that the resident viewed it especially as once the resident moved into the property, she raised a number of repairs. Furthermore, the viewing sheet is not signed by either party, which would have given the resident the opportunity to provide her views on the condition of the property.
On moving into the property, the resident reported that the boiler was not working. This was expected as boilers are usually recommissioned after occupation by the tenant. In its complaint response, the landlord apologised that it had not identified that the electrician had not connected the spur fuse. This was appropriate that it recognised that the failure of the boiler was not solely down to the recommissioning process but that there was a further delay experienced by the resident in having the electrician to reattend.
The landlord stated that the notes from its operatives said that it had offered alternative heating for the period, the resident was without heating. This was a period of five days – 26 April 2021 when she moved in until 1 May 2021 when the heating was restored. The resident has disputed that alternative heating was offered. The landlord would be expected to provide alternative heating for residents that it has assessed as vulnerable. In this particular case, the landlord’s submission to this Service has not provided evidence that it offered alternative heating to the resident.
There were repair reports on 4 May 2021 and 20 May 2021 that the guttering to the property was defective. The guttering was cleaned and the damp proof course, flashing and skirt was repointed on 31 May 2021. This was completed within 18 working days which was just outside its repair standard of 15 working days.
There was further repair reports regarding the gutter in July 2021 where it was identified that the hopper head and downpipe needed replacing. Around two months later at the end of September 2021, there was a further report that the guttering to the front and side of the property was blocked. The operative who attended noted that this was the second report regarding the same matter. He recommended that the fascia and guttering be replaced as it was in poor condition. There were further reports that the gutter was blocked on 20 October 2021 and the property was scaffolded on 29 November 2021. From the available information it does not give the date that the fascia and guttering was replaced. It is evident that the repairs to the guttering did not resolve the problem as in its final complaint response, the landlord agreed to renew the guttering and soffit boards to the property in the coming financial year. This was not appropriate as the landlord under the tenancy agreement had a responsibility to ensure that the exterior of the property is maintained. The resident had experienced an unacceptable delay in the landlord repairing the guttering to the property. The landlord’s repairing obligations stated that it would undertake routine repairs within 15 working days, therefore its decision to delay repairs from February 2022 until April 2023 was not reasonable especially considering the resident’s medical condition.
The resident reported cracks in the brickwork to the property in May 2021, which was not repaired until July 2021. This took around 50 days which was not reasonable. After this, there was a further repair to rebond the brickwork reported on 10 June 2021, which was not completed until 2 February 2022. This was around 8 months. The situation remained unresolved as in its final complaint response the landlord advised that further repairs had been raised for the repointing of the brickwork. The landlord’s submission to this Service does not indicate which areas of brickwork the repairs relate to. Therefore, it is not possible to ascertain if the reports relate to the same parts of the property. However, what can be seen is the unreasonable delay experienced by the resident in getting the repairs completed.
The landlord’s housing occupation standard states that the floors should be free from infestation. Once the boiler was operational, the resident reported on 14 May 2021 that she could smell urine in the property. The landlord attended within five days on 21 May 2021 and replaced the floorboards. This was appropriate as it was not foreseeable before the resident took up occupation that the landlord would have been aware of the smell in the property even though there were different trades working in the property between January 2021 and April 2021. Furthermore, the resident when she viewed the property did not report that during the viewing that she noticed the urine smell.
The limitations of the landlord’s records means that this report cannot say with certainty which or how many floorboards it replaced. In its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed that when it visited the resident’s property in December 2021, that the smell of urine had been resolved. This has not been disputed by the resident and that the current smell in the property related to wet plaster.
The landlord’s void records show works to make good cracks in the plaster and affix plasterboard. The records do not say which room(s) the work was carried out to. The landlord has accepted that the information collected at the viewing, does not provide any information on the condition of the walls. The landlord’s housing occupation standard states that the walls should be in a condition to receive wallpaper. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord in its complaint response to agree to plaster the walls within the property.
However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident or her son’s personal circumstances such as their respective medical conditions in the scheduling of the work. It was aware that she was having treatment for cancer and that the plastering work involved large amounts of dust and disturbance. This was inappropriate.
The landlord appropriately considered whether the resident had any support needs and referred the resident to its housing needs team for an assessment. On both occasions, the resident advised that she did not have any support needs and wanted the repairs resolved. However, if taken up, this was an opportunity for the resident to discuss any concerns that she had and to be signposted to services that could assist her.
From what can be seen, the plastering works to the property started in July 2021 and completed by end of October 2021. This took around four months and was an unreasonable length of time. The landlord in its submission to this Service has not explained the reasons why the work took so long, whether it supplied the resident with a schedule to inform her how it intended to carry out the work and how it kept the resident updated with the progress of work. It appears that the responsibility was placed on the resident to manage the disruption of having the work taking place while she lived in the property.

The offer of a temporary decant while works were being carried out.

The landlord’s decant policy sets out how it will support residents when improvement works are taking place in the property and it will assess depending on the resident’s circumstances the support that can be provided.
Looking at the facts of the case, there is no evidence that prior to the plastering works starting in the residents home, the landlord assessed whether it was suitable for the resident to remain in the property while the work was taking place.
The landlord in its complaint responses stated that it did not agree that a temporary decant was required. The landlord has not said how it reached that decision or what factors it considered. The landlord appears to rely on an agreement that it had with the resident on 5 August 2021 that she wanted to stay at the property whilst the works were taking place. The resident disputes this. This Service requested that the landlord provide evidence of this agreement for this investigation and it was not received. This is not appropriate as the landlord should have the records it relied on to support its finding within its complaint investigation. The omission of this interactions with the resident regarding her agreement to stay in the property while works were taking place indicates poor record keeping as the landlord’s position cannot be confirmed.
The resident position that she did not agree to remain in the property while the works are taking place in August 2021 are supported by her conversation with a senior leader on 18 August 2021 who agreed to provide emergency accommodation for two nights only. The temporary accommodation was agreed as the resident was finding the work disruptive and due to her son disabilities.
After the two nights, the resident tried to get the landlord to extend the accommodation but the landlord did not agree to this. From the available information, the landlord did not act in accordance with its decant procedure. It initially offered respite for the resident for two nights assessing that the amount of work being carried out was causing the resident distress. Though the resident advised that the situation remained unchanged after the two nights, it did not identify practical alternative arrangements to minimise disruption to the resident as outlined in its policy. Its assessment that the resident could occupy one room in the property whilst it was carrying out plastering works when it was aware that she was receiving treatment and had recently undergone an operation for cancer was not reasonable. Furthermore, it also has not evidenced how that type of living arrangement would impact her son whilst the work was taking place.
The landlord in its complaint response stated that it did not know who had organised the provision of temporary accommodation. This is inappropriate as it brings its complaint investigation into disrepute as the decision was made by one of the senior leaders in the housing maintenance service. Again, this is evidence of poor recording keeping by the landlord as a senior member of staff made a decision regarding the resident and this was not reflected in its complaint response. Furthermore, this aspect of the final complaint response gives the impression that the resident’s testimony was fabricated as the landlord implied that it was not involved in the organisation of the temporary accommodation.
The landlord final complaint response recognised that the resident did not return to the property whilst the plastering work was taking place but was staying at her ex-partners accommodation. The landlord has not demonstrated that it acted in accordance with its decant policy to consider the change in the resident’s personal circumstances and in effect just accepted that she could stay at her ex-partner without assessing whether it was reasonable for her to do so. This was not appropriate as the available information does not show that the landlord took the opportunity to assess whether it should be providing temporary accommodation until the plastering works were completed.
Ultimately, the landlord was responsible for the repairs to the wall plaster and ensuring the property was fit for habitation while the works was carried out. The landlord should have considered whether the resident and her family needed to be decanted while the works were completed to the property. It was not reasonable to expect the resident to make one room habitable for the work to be carried out and this would inevitably cause distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family. The landlord has not demonstrated that it acted sensitively to the resident’s situation apart from the hotel booking that it made for two days to give her some respite from the plastering works. The landlord’s records do not show how it determined that it did not have a responsibility to continue the temporary accommodation that it provided. Neither has it shown that once it was aware that the resident was staying at her ex-partner’s property that it reassessed whether a temporary decant was required by the resident until the plastering works were completed.

The personal items that were damaged while the work was taking place.

The resident has said that while the work was carried out, the landlord’s contractors damaged her bed and they did not take care to protect her belongings. The landlord in its complaint responses, said that while the work was taking place, the resident did not inform them of the damages. This was an appropriate response as it was reasonable to expect the resident to inform the landlord or its contractors at the earliest opportunity about the damaged items so it could take assess and take action at the time. The landlord’s guidelines state that its contractors should use dust sheets and take sufficient methods to protect the resident’s belongings. As the resident made the complaint about the damage to her belongings after the work had been completed, the landlord stated that it was not possible to assess whether its contractors had followed its advice.
The resident also informed the landlord that the smell of urine affected the mattress, bedding and quilts and that they could not be used. The landlord has confirmed that the resident can make a claim for damage to her belongings and has signposted the resident to make a public liability claim for the damage to her belongings. It is not within the Ombudsman authority to determine whether the contractors have been negligent in this regard as this is a matter more appropriately considered by an insurance or legal process. Therefore, it was reasonable of the landlord to refer the resident to make a public liability claim.

The related complaint

The landlord’s complaint procedure says it will respond to complaints within 20 working days at both stages of the complaint procedure. The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 18 November 2021. The resident had to chase the landlord for its complaint response before it responded on 21 December 2021. The landlord took 23 days which was, just outside of its published deadline of 20 working days.
The resident escalated her complaint on 30 December 2021. The complaint response sent to this Service is dated 7 January 2022. The landlord was asked to clarify the date that it was actually sent to the resident. The landlord did not respond. The landlord apologised on the 31 January 2022 for the delay in providing its final complaint response, which was sent to the resident on 7 February 2022. This landlord took 26 working days, again just outside its complaint handling timescale of 20 working days.
This Service’s complaint handling code informs landlord that its complaint investigation should consist of reliable information so that the decisions that it makes are fair. This investigation has already noted that the landlord’s complaint responses to the resident contained discrepancies regarding the resident’s request for a temporary decant and its assessment of the temporary accommodation that it provided. The landlord’s complaint response stated that the resident had agreed to remain in the property while the works were taking place. This is disputed by the resident and the landlord’s own records show that from the beginning of August 2021 the resident was experiencing difficulty managing the disruption in the property due to the plastering work. Furthermore, it stated that it was unaware who had agreed the temporary accommodation that the resident had been provided with when it was agreed by a senior leader in the housing maintenance team. This is not reasonable as the complaint investigation should consider and weigh the evidence carefully and the errors contained in its complaint responses undermines the credibility of the complaint investigation. Furthermore, it implied that the information provided by the resident regarding the offer of the temporary accommodation was incorrect.
Whilst the landlord in its complaint response apologised for the delay in providing its complaint response and for the inconvenience experienced in getting the repairs carried out to the property, it did not consider whether compensation award was appropriate for the service failures that it had identified or for the delay in progressing the works that had come to light following the resident’s occupation of the property. This was not appropriate as it did not provide an appropriate remedy for the failures that it recognised neither did it take the opportunity to review the complaint to see what it could learn from the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the property when it was let to her.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the offer of a temporary decant while works were being carried out.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the personal items that were damaged while the work was taking place.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s records show that when the property was let to the resident, there was a number of essential repairs required to the property. The landlord was unable to evidence that it had supplied alternative heating to the resident. There was unreasonable delays and outstanding repairs still required to the guttering and the brickwork. The agreed plastering works took around four months to complete.
Despite requests from this Service, there is no evidence to support the landlord’s assertion that the resident agreed to remain at the property while the plastering works were carried out. There is evidence that the resident found the works disruptive. After the temporary accommodation ended, there is no evidence that the landlord assessed whether the resident stay at her ex-partner’s address was suitable or reasonable or whether it should provide her with temporary accommodation until the works were completed.
The landlord reasonably considered that the resident had not informed it or its contractors while the work was ongoing that her belongings were damaged. Therefore, its decision for its insurers to consider the liability for the belongings was reasonable.
The landlord in its final complaint response to the resident contained inaccuracies. The investigation referred to an agreement with the resident regarding remaining in the accommodation whilst the works were ongoing which it did not evidence. Furthermore, it advised that it did not know who had agreed to the offer of temporary accommodation, when this was agreed by a senior leader. This is not in accordance with the complaint handling code which expects residents to receive a fair and evidenced complaint response which addresses their concerns.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident a compensation award of £1400 broken down as:
1. £600 for the unacceptable delay in replacing the guttering and replastering the property.
2. £400 for its failure to assess whether the resident qualified for a temporary decant while the plastering works were being undertaken.
3. £400 for its complaint handling failures.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If she has not already done so, the landlord to assist the resident with making an insurance claim for her items that were damaged while the work was being carried out.
The landlord to carry out a self-assessment against the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report: Knowledge and Information Management (available on HOS’ website) and provide a copy of the report to this Service.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within six weeks of the date of this report.