Midland Heart Limited (202013847)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013847

Midland Heart Limited

10 June 2021

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 reports about the property condition at the tenancy start date and repair issues following the tenancy start date.

Background and summary of events

Agreements, policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement between landlord and resident sets out their responsibilities with regard to the upkeep of the property. The landlord is obliged to keep in working order the supply of gas, electric, water and sanitation. It must maintain the heating and hot water system. It is also responsible for the structure of the property, including internal walls, floors and ceilings.

The agreement states it is the resident’s responsibility to maintain the garden, (including keeping any hedges pruned) and to decorate the interior of the property to a reasonable standard.

The landlord operates a Repairs and Maintenance policy. It states that “the vulnerability of our customers…..(needs) to be considered when delivering a repairs and maintenance service”.

That policy sets out the landlord’s aim of completing most repairs within one visit and keeping residents advised where this is not possible; setting criteria for pre-inspection where what is required needs to be more clearly identified; and carrying out sufficient post repair inspections to enable it to monitor quality and performance.

The landlord’s Complaints, Comments & Compliments Policy sets out that financial compensation is an option of last resort where the resident has suffered significant loss or inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s actions. It states the amount will be limited, and is to being calculated in accordance with its Compensation Matrix.

The landlord’s Compensation Matrix states as follows: For service failures as a result of delay/quality/administrative error, compensation of between £35 – £70 is appropriate, depending upon the impact on the tenant; for upset and inconvenience the landlord envisages a maximum payment of £100; the landlord can offer decoration vouchers of £35 per room; for loss of heating during winter months (November – April) it can offer £3.75 per day. Failed appointments are compensated at £10 each.

Scope

The resident has reported that on 31 January 2021, she had an accident on the stairs in the property and suffered personal injury. This happened after her complaint was made to the landlord and does not form part of it. The landlord has referred the matter to its insurers as the resident wishes to claim compensation. Had the issue been included in the original complaint this Service would still not be able to consider it in any event. This is because this Service is not able to assess whether there is a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and the resident’s reported injuries. Any compensation sought would need to be pursued via a legal claim as this service does not have the remit or expertise to reasonably assess the matter. A court of law would be an appropriate venue for such a claim.

Background

The resident’s tenancy of the property started on 10 August 2020. Prior to this the property had been empty (void). The landlord’s records show that during the void period, works had been undertaken to deal with mould and damp on the ground floor. The landlord had concluded this was caused by poor underfloor ventilation. It had hacked off the existing plasterwork, treated the areas with an anti-fungal treatment and then replastered. The walls had then been painted in a neutral colour. In the landlord’s opinion the property was ready to decorate or wallpaper depending upon the resident’s preference.

Summary of events

On 14 August 2020, shortly after the tenancy commenced, the resident contacted the landlord raising issues with the floorboards in the boiler cupboard; stating the upstairs plaster was not even and that she wanted it replastering; she also said that rubble, rubbish and bricks had been left in the garden. On 19 August she raised further concerns, namely that the stairs were very steep, the spacing of the bannister spindles was too wide, and some pipework and wiring was exposed.

On 8 September 2020, the landlord visited the resident. It had been asked to attend because the resident had been in touch stating all the plaster was coming off the walls in the property. It’s staff member noted the resident had been stripping wallpaper in the bedrooms and hallway and whilst doing so, the plaster had come away in places with it. The resident had started this exercise as soon as she had signed up for the property and the landlord’s records show its understanding was that she intended to decorate before moving in. The resident was asking the landlord to decorate the property, but this was not agreed, and it had provided decorating vouchers to the resident during ‘sign up’.

As a result of this visit the landlord asked its contractor to reattend to check the work it had done downstairs as the walls were still showing as damp. A visit was carried out on 5 November and a second, booked by the resident for 11 November, was cancelled because the matter was already in hand. The landlord’s records note the resident was not informed of this cancellation.

On 18 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord complaining that she was having to stay with a relative because the house was uninhabitable, she had two very young children to support, was struggling with mental health issues and that her attempts to get the property ready to live in had been going on since August 2020. She stated it was now coming to the end of November and nothing was being done. She provided details of what, in her view, was outstanding as follows.

Bathroom : it needed retiling due to condensation, damp and mould and the plaster coming off.

Kitchen : the plaster to the kitchen walls had been wrongly applied and would eventually come off.

Understairs cupboard : There was damp in this cupboard.

Bedroom Walls : the plaster to all three bedroom walls needed replacing and then decorating. The resident had had some assistance from a family member who was no longer available. She would need the landlord’s help with stripping the hallway landing of wallpaper and two of the bedroom ceilings.

Boiler : The resident stated she had been advised this needed replacing due to its age.

Insulation : The resident stated the property needed insulating and rendering. She had telephoned the landlord to get this arranged but no one had returned her contact.

Garden : this was overgrown, with bricks, glass and rubble in the garden. This should have been removed before the keys were handed over. The front garden hedge also needed cutting back.

The resident stated she had been advised that the various outstanding repairs should have been completed before she moved in. In particular, she stated the surveyor was concerned about damp in the living and dining room. The resident’s understanding was that those rooms had been damp-proofed and replastered, but the work had not been done properly and needed to be repeated. Following this the landlord had been out with its contractor to inspect the work and had concluded it was acceptable and damp patches had arisen because the chimney needed capping.

At this point the landlord undertook moisture tests in the under stairs cupboard which suggested it was being affected by a leak or burst pipe. A repair was raised to deal with this.

The resident was currently staying with a relative meaning she had to make a journey to the property to let the landlord’s contractors in. She complained that she had done this on one occasion and waited for five hours only to find a note through the letterbox saying she was out (when she wasn’t) and this had wasted her time. There had been an ongoing problem with communication about appointments.

The resident questioned why she had not been put in temporary accommodation whilst all the works were carried out. She attached photographic evidence in support of her position that the property was uninhabitable.

On 26 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage one complaint response. It had already spoken to the resident by telephone on 23 November. The landlord’s surveyor, who had inspected the property when it was empty and after any repairs had been carried out, had been contacted for their input. As far as the landlord was concerned the situation was as follows:

Walls: The walls had been wallpapered when the property was handed over (and when the resident had viewed it). The resident had now stripped that paper in the property and this had exposed some issues, in her view, with the plastering. The landlord confirmed it would not usually strip paper as part of void works/survey. It pointed out that had the resident contacted it as soon as the first room was done and an issue noted, it could have supported her investigating the other rooms and also carrying out any replastering one room at a time to minimise disruption. A surveyor had attended on 8 September to check what was required and raised works to replaster the three bedrooms. This was booked for 14 December.

Living room and Kitchen: some damp had been noted when the property was empty and this had been extensively treated and the walls replastered and painted.

Cupboard: The landlord confirmed damp patches in the cupboard under the stairs had been treated prior to the resident moving in. This had reappeared and the landlord had retreated the area. That work was now complete.

Bathroom: The landlord noted the resident was not living at the property and the heating was not on. It considered this might lead to condensation in the bathroom, which in turn could lead to mould. It stated the resident should monitor this once she had moved in and begun to use the heating and it committed to reattending if this continued to prove a problem.

Boiler: The heating and hot water system had been checked prior to the resident moving in. The boiler was serviced at this time and no issues found. The landlord was not planning to replace it. Should any faults occur in future, the resident was advised to report them for repairs.

Insulation/Loft: the landlord stated it had no evidence to suggest the loft was not insulated but it had booked for someone to inspect it on 7 December, 2020.

Garden: All cutting back (including the hedge) and removal of rubbish was done before handover and left in the condition the resident saw on viewing the property. Moving forward, the landlord stated the garden was the resident’s responsibility to maintain.

Chimney: The chimney had now been capped to prevent damp entering the property. The landlord accepted this had not been done whilst the property was empty but was completed on 20 November.

Floorboards: An appointment had been fixed for 7 December 2020 to check for any loose or broken boards.

Backdoor: an appointment had been fixed to check the back door for 7 December 2020

Sockets: It would agree to replace single sockets with double ones in each of the bedrooms and in the living room. The landlord confirmed that this was not usually highlighted as an issue when getting a property ready for a new tenant. An appointment would be confirmed in due course.

Failed Appointment: the landlord apologised for a missed appointment on 11 November 2020.

In conclusion the landlord stated it would uphold the resident’s complaint with regard to the chimney having not been capped when the property was empty, the failed appointment, and the delays in completing the plastering and offered compensation of £115 made up of Chimney £35, delays £70, failed appointment £10.

On 7 December 2020 the landlord attended the property to sort out the back door. It also refixed floorboards in the bedrooms and replaced two broken short boards on the landing.

On 6 January 2021 the resident emailed the landlord. She stated she had had the property since 10 August, paying rent, but it had been uninhabitable with numerous outstanding repairs. She was promised all plastering work would be completed by 14 December 2020. This was changed to 18 December and then again to 18 January 2021. There had been a lack of communication about it, leaving her to chase for information and she had been told the ceilings were not being plastered even though she had been given contradictory information saying they would be included. In addition, she reported the following:

The property was cold, mainly because so many radiators were off their hinges and out of use (due to the replastering) and that she, and her two young children, were having to sleep in one room.

There were damp patches in the living and dining rooms. The landlord’s operative had told her this was because the damp proofing had not been done properly and needed to be redone, and this was why there were cracks across the chimney breast and on some walls. In addition the paint in the kitchen was starting to crack due to damp and it was also coming in through the backdoor and was present in the kitchen cupboard.

There was no seal around the kitchen sink and one of the cupboard doors had not been hung properly.

There was water staining on the plasterwork where the landlord’s operative had taken a radiator off the wall downstairs.

One of the landlord’s operatives had told her the boiler was too old and needed replacing. She considered three radiators also needed replacing due to rust and she would like them replaced with double ones.

No appointment had come through for the sockets to be replaced (with double ones) in each of the rooms.

The bathroom needed retiling and there was damp in there which was causing mould. She questioned whether there was a leak coming from the roof.

The previous tenant had resided in the property for 40 – 50 years during which time it had not been maintained/updated.

There were floorboards missing in the boiler cupboard and there were broken floorboards and gaps, including a hole where she could see down into the hallway below. The landlord’s operative had replaced just two with plywood and had applied filler which was white and “looked awful”. The landing and front bedroom both needed the floorboards replacing. She considered they were “dangerous” and explained she could not afford carpeting to cover them.

There was cracked and broken wood on the stairs, which were too steep and should be extended to comply with current guidelines – she had fallen on them three times already. A nail sticking out of the floorboards had cut her footwear and was a hazard.

A hedge needed to be cut back in the front garden and there were broken slabs which needed replacing. There was rubbish in the back garden which pre-existed her tenancy and needed removing.

There had been at least ten missed appointments since the repairs started.

The state of the property was preventing her eldest three children from being able to live with her.

The resident concluded by stating she wanted her complaint about the state of the property to be escalated to “the highest level”.

On 2 February 2021 the resident sent a series of emails to the landlord enclosing photographs of repairs she considered were necessary and outstanding. She reiterated that she had been told by three different people that the ceilings were going to be replastered (but since then, that they were not) and asked for this issue to be added to her complaint.

The landlord replied the same day apologising for the time it had taken to sort everything out and committing to getting all repairs attended to as soon as possible.

On 3 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident thanking her for her escalation request. It responded as follows:

Walls : Once the resident had removed the wallpaper in all three of the bedrooms, the landlord’s surveyor had attended on 8 September 2020 to assess the condition of the walls. They did not identify any structural issues but agreed to arrange for the three rooms to be replastered. The landlord accepted there had been a delay before the repair was commenced but stated this was outside its control as the pandemic restrictions had created a shortage in the availability of plaster.

Bathroom: The landlord confirmed that whilst the property was void it had completed extensive works to this room and had repaired the roof. It confirmed it had assessed the room again and found no issues.

Heat: the landlord agreed that there was a lack of heat in the home – this was because the radiators upstairs had had to be removed to enable the plastering work to be done.

Boiler: the boiler had been serviced when the resident moved in and no issues had been found. The date for upgrading the boiler had not yet been reached.

Insulation and heating: the loft had been checked in response to the formal complaint and the insulation was found to be thin. A top up layer of insulation was being organised.

Backdoor: A repair had been raised and booked for 5 February to check this.

Electric sockets: The resident had reported being dissatisfied with the single sockets before and they had been changed to double ones on 26 January 2021.

The landlord noted the resident had raised other issues which had not been contained in the original complaint, but it wanted to address them in any event.

A repair had been raised to seal the kitchen sink for 24 February.

A radiator had been repaired and left working in the dining room on 29 December 2020. A repair had been raised for which ever radiator was now not working and to assess the rusty radiators. However, the likelihood was that if the rust was on the surface, they would not be replaced.

In conclusion the landlord declined to escalate the complaint stating actions had been taken to resolve the issues the resident had reported. The landlord confirmed its complaints procedure had now been exhausted.

Also on 3 February 2021 the landlord emailed the resident acknowledging she had notified it of an accident she had had in the property. It stated that any claim needed to be directed through its insurers and a list of the details it needed from the resident was set out in the email for a referral to be made.

With regard to ceilings, the landlord stated this was not part of the original complaint and in its opinion, they did not need replastering anyway.

The resident provided the details the landlord needed for the insurance claim on 10 February 2021. She confirmed she had fallen on the stairs on 31 January 2021 and reported injuries, including a fractured bone, bruising and that the fall had caused her to suffer a miscarriage.

Further emails were exchanged on 12 February when the landlord confirmed it had made a referral to its insurers, denied a further surveying appointment was being arranged, and reported the radiators were ready to be rehung when the resident was ready for this. The resident responded that a further surveying appointment had been agreed as necessary and there were still numerous repairs to be done. She asked the landlord to decorate the bedroom and hallway reporting she was too ill to do it herself.

On 16 February 2021 the landlord responded, asking the resident to provide a list to confirm what she considered was outstanding. It noted an appointment to rehang the radiators had been refused by the resident because she wanted the ceilings replastered but the landlord had inspected them and they did not need it. A further inspection had, however, been agreed. With regards to decorating, the landlord stated it had provided decorating vouchers at the outset of the tenancy but reminded the resident that this was her responsibility moving forward.

The landlord’s records show that on 26 January 2021 and 18 February 2021 it attended the property and replaced three single electric sockets with double ones although the existing ones were fit for purpose; on 3 March 2021 the floorboards in the front and rear bedrooms and the landing were replaced; the ones in the cupboard were replaced on 8 March 2021. Further, on 24 March 2021 the landlord attended the property again to stain block water marks on the ceiling and arranged to follow this up with repairs to living room ceiling cracks.

The landlord’s records dated April 2021 show the backdoor was adjusted to prevent water coming in and that in its opinion the issue would only have become apparent once the property was inhabited.

The landlord then arranged an appointment for its roofing contractor to check the roof over the bathroom on 14 May 2021.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs

It is reasonable to expect a landlord to ensure a property is fit for habitation following a void period and in readiness for a new tenant. Prior to handing this property over to the resident, the landlord had, indeed, inspected it and had undertaken significant works to it.

Despite this having been done, the resident has reported a number of issues and outstanding repairs and the question becomes whether the landlord might reasonably have identified those matters and dealt with them prior to the tenancy being created. Alternatively, if the issues arose after the tenancy was created (or if the landlord could not have identified them), the question becomes whether the landlord has acted reasonably in its handling of the resident’s reports of those repairs.

When the property was handed over, the upstairs bedrooms and landing were wallpapered. The landlord had assessed the condition of those areas as acceptable. The resident wanted to redecorate, and it was upon stripping wallpaper that the plaster underneath proved to be unstable. The landlord asserts it would not normally strip wallpaper to check the condition of walls before handing a property over. In the absence of any warning signs suggesting this was necessary, (and no evidence has been produced to show this was the case here) the landlord acted reasonably in taking this stance. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the landlord might reasonably have identified (and dealt with) this issue pre-tenancy.

Moving into a new home can be exciting and the resident was enthusiastic and ambitious in the scope of the decorating she wished to carry out upstairs. The landlord considers that by carrying on stripping wallpaper, when it must have been apparent to the resident that a problem was being created, means the resident was, to some extent, the author of her own misfortune. It said that had she stopped when she realised there was a problem, the landlord could have carried out the work a room at a time, minimising the extent of the disruption that plastering works inevitably bring. The landlord makes a reasonable point here.

Further, because the majority of the upstairs now needed replastering, the radiators had to be removed and the resident reported the property as cold. Again, this could have been avoided had the work been carried out a bit at a time. That said, having identified a possible issue with the heat at the property, the landlord could have provided temporary heating facilities to the resident whilst the radiators remained out of use. There is no evidence that the landlord did this however.

Once it was identified that plastering work was required, the landlord agreed to do it which was an appropriate response. The work was delayed until January 2021 and whilst the landlord has argued that this was in part due to limited supplies of the raw materials needed, it has accepted that the service it offered the resident in this regard fell below the standard she might reasonably have expected. Again, it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise this and offer compensation. The level of that compensation will be considered below.

There are two other issues that the landlord might not have been expected to identify when dealing with any void works. Firstly, the resident reported the back door was not watertight. The property was let in mid-summer and it is understandable that it might not have been apparent to the landlord that this was a problem at the time. Secondly, the landlord treated damp in the understairs cupboard pre-tenancy and, again, it might not reasonably have been apparent that this problem would recur after the resident moved in. Both issues were attended to by the landlord upon the resident reporting them and the landlord acted reasonably in this regard.

There are then some issues which the landlord might have been expected to identify from its void inspection.

The resident reported a lack of floorboards in the boiler cupboard, and issues with various other areas of floorboarding upstairs. The fact the landlord then undertook repairs (including in the cupboard) demonstrates that work was required. Further, it is reasonable to conclude that such defects do not appear quickly and that they therefore pre-existed the tenancy. The landlord might reasonably have been expected to identify them as part of its void survey and deal with them before the handover.

As stated above, as part of its void works the landlord dealt with damp in the downstairs of the property. When the resident moved in she reported that the issue persisted. The landlord acted appropriately by checking this work and satisfying itself as to its quality. However, it did identify that the chimney had not been capped and ongoing damp was attributed to this omission. The landlord might reasonably have been expected to identify and deal with this during its void works. It has accepted this, which was an appropriate response, and offered compensation which will be considered below.

The resident doubts this problem has been properly diagnosed and wants the damp proofing to be repeated. No evidence has been produced, however, to confirm her view and this Service cannot offer an expert opinion as to the cause of the damp – which is what would be required. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable for the landlord to have relied on the informed opinion of its surveyor. It is also relevant that there is no evidence of a continuing problem after the chimney was capped. A recommendation will be made with regard to a follow up inspection later in this decision.

This leaves a number of other issues raised by the resident where she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s stance.

The resident complained of rubble and rubbish in the garden and of the need for hedge pruning to take place. It is noted that the tenancy agreement states the garden is the resident’s responsibility to maintain. The landlord has acted reasonably in pointing this out to the resident. It states the garden was in the same state on creation of the tenancy, as it was pre-tenancy when the resident inspected it. No evidence has been produced to contradict that. Accordingly, the landlord has acted reasonably in refusing to take any action on this issue.

The resident has reported the stairs are too steep. The landlord points out this is a structural issue which it cannot change. No evidence has been produced to contradict the landlord’s stance and its refusal to act was, therefore, reasonable. There will be a recommendation made however, given there are very young children living in this property, for the landlord to check that the spacing of the bannister spindles complies with regulations. The resident has commented on the state of the stairs generally. This did not form part of her original complaint and is attached to the possible insurance claim she is making. This Service cannot provide an expert opinion on how safe the stairs are, but once again a recommendation will be made below regarding a follow up inspection.

The landlord has declined to replace the boiler. There is no evidence that it is faulty, or past its replacement date according to any planned improvement works. The landlord has acted reasonably in its stance on this issue.

The resident states the landlord agreed to replaster the ceilings. It’s position is that it has not agreed to this and they do not need doing anyway. This Service bases its decisions on documentary evidence. Firstly, there is no written evidence of the landlord committing to plastering the ceilings. Secondly, no evidence has been produced to demonstrate that this is necessary. Accordingly, the landlord has acted reasonably in this regard.

The resident reported condensation and mould forming in the bathroom. The landlord inspected it and determined nothing was required over and above what had already been done during the void period. The presence of condensation (from which mould can form) does not, in itself, confirm a failing on the landlord’s behalf.

Without any expert evidence of a cause for this problem, and in the absence of an admission by the landlord that there are outstanding works, it is not possible for this Service to order or recommend repairs. In this situation, a recommendation might be made for the landlord to check the roof to ensure nothing has been missed (as suggested by the resident) but it is noted that the landlord has already arranged this, which is a reasonable response to the resident’s reports.

With regard to the kitchen, the resident’s view is that the plaster has been applied incorrectly and that, in due course, it will debond from the wall. However, there is no evidence of a current problem or to support the resident’s view. The landlord has not offered to take such action and that was reasonable under the circumstances.

The resident has suggested the landlord should have offered her alternative temporary accommodation whilst the works were being carried out. However, she was already staying with a relative. The landlord’s internal records show its understanding that she was not planning to move in until the decorating had been done anyway. The level of disruption caused by the plastering and removed radiators was contributed to by the resident’s own actions and any remaining works were minor in comparison. The landlord did not offer to ‘decant’ the resident and under these circumstances, its stance was reasonable.

Finally, the landlord acted reasonably in changing single electric sockets for double ones. There is no evidence this was necessary or that the existing sockets were not fit for purpose. The landlord volunteered to undertake this work but did not have to do it.

In summary, the landlord delayed in getting the plastering done. It failed to identify the issue with capping the chimney, and the floorboards, during its pre-tenancy works. These represent service failings on the landlord’s part.

The landlord’s offer of compensation

The landlord offered a total of £115 compensation. It took account of the chimney issue, delays to the plastering work and a missed appointment. No compensation was offered to the inconvenience of having the floorboards dealt with (when this should have been resolved pre tenancy).

The resident has vulnerabilities which would have increased the impact on her of the landlord’s failings. According to its compensation matrix the landlord might reasonably have offered compensation of £70 for its delays, and £100 for the inconvenience to the resident of accommodating the chimney and floorboard repairs and of living in the property during the delay in the plastering work. The missed appointment was appropriately compensated for with the offer of £10 which accords with its policy. Though the resident has reported additional missed appointments, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to support this position.

The landlord’s delay in completing the plastering left the resident with no heating upstairs. Whilst an issue has been raised about the part the resident played in this, the fact remains that the landlord agreed to start the plastering in early/mid December but delayed until mid January. The resident was left without heating upstairs for approximately one month, and there is no evidence of the landlord providing alternative means of heating in this time. According to the landlord’s compensation matrix it would be appropriate to offer the resident compensation of £3.75 per day during this period, that is 30 days @ £3.75= £112.50.

Accordingly, the landlord’s offer of compensation did not adequately reflect the impact on the resident and represented a service failing in itself. An order will be made for compensation to be paid of £292.50 (£70 + £100 + £10 + £112.50).

With respect to the resident’s request for help with redecorating from the landlord, the tenancy agreement sets out that internal decoration is her responsibility. The resident considers, however, that due to the number of repairs, the landlord should take responsibility for this work. In fact the redecoration is required due to the replastering and the resident was expecting to decorate those rooms anyway and so no additional work to her has been caused. Indeed, she had received vouchers for this purpose.

However, the landlord’s Repairs Policy does require it to take account of vulnerabilities and a recommendation will be made that it considers whether and to what extent it might be able to offer practical or further financial support with this exercise: alternatively the landlord will be recommended to advise the resident of what amount it would charge back to her for doing the work itself – so that she might make an informed decision as to whether she wishes to ask the landlord to organise it for her.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports about the property condition at the tenancy start date and repair issues she reported following the start of the tenancy.

Reasons

There was a delay in completing replastering to the bedrooms and landing at the property. The landlord failed to identify and resolve issues with the chimney and the floorboards prior to the tenancy being created and the resident was put to time and trouble and inconvenience in accommodating these works. The landlord’s compensation matrix allows for more compensation to be paid than it had offered. In addition, the landlord had not considered whether an allowance for lack of heating should be paid during the period when it delayed in attending to the replastering and the radiators were out of action.

Orders and/or Recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay compensation to the resident totalling £292.50.

The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order. Any amounts already paid to the resident to be deducted from the total sum payable.

Recommendations

The landlord to visit the property to assess its current condition, agree a schedule of works with the resident for any outstanding repairs for which it is responsible, and provide the resident with a written timetable for their completion. This is to include checking that the spacing of the bannister spindles complies with regulations and to check the overall condition of the stairs.
The landlord to consider whether it wishes to offer the resident any assistance with redecoration, notwithstanding the resident’s responsibilities under the tenancy agreement, and confirm its decision to her in writing.

Upon the resident requesting it, the landlord to provide written confirmation of what amount it would charge back to her for carrying out/arranging any redecoration.