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

Citizen Housing (202313888)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313888

Citizen Housing

28 August 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for replacement internal doors.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom, first-floor flat owned by the landlord. He is disabled and has multiple health conditions. He was assisted in bringing his complaint to the landlord by Citizen’s Advice. For clarity, both him and Citizen’s Advice will be referred to as “the resident” in this report.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord that his living room door was missing on 24 October 2022. It attended on 3 January 2023 but could not access the property. It reattended on 13 March 2023 and found that multiple doors were missing in the property. It was not clear about what had happened to the doors and advised him that it would replace the doors, at a cost of £120 per door to the resident.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 22 March 2023 as he had expected it to complete repair and replacement works to internal doors during the appointment on 13 March 2023, but it told its operatives not to replace any doors as he was responsible for payment for these. He said the issue had been ongoing for a while and this had caused problems with heating the property through winter due to the missing internal doors. He said that it had removed the doors and that he should not be responsible for the cost of replacements.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 12 April 2023. It provided dates of continued reports from 2017 to 2022 relating to the living room door being stiff, which it had raised repairs for each time. It was unable to access the property on each of these occasions. It stated that it would ensure all fixtures and fittings were up to standard prior to letting a property and that his tenancy agreement states he must not dispose of these. It would be happy to repair or refit any internal doors which were in his home at the start of the tenancy, however, if missing items needed replacing, he would be responsible for the cost of these.
  5. On 24 May 2023, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He did not consider himself responsible for paying for replacement doors. He said that the landlord’s records highlighted previous issues with internal doors, and he was certain that it took them away. He maintained that there was no reason he would take down and throw away doors, especially when considering his health conditions.
  6. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 21 June 2023. During its investigation, it had found evidence that the property had internal doors while he had been in the property and as such, it said it would not be responsible for the cost of replacing them. It noted 8 jobs raised for internal doors, 7 of which it was unable to complete because of access issues. It said that it could not locate any evidence that it removed the missing doors, and it would not do this without replacing them. It encouraged him to pay for replacement of his kitchen fire door as soon as possible.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response that it was his responsibility to fund replacement doors and brought his complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy outlines responsibility for repairs. It states that tenants are responsible for allowing access for repair works for which it is responsible and for the repair or replacement of items in a property which are damaged due to neglect, carelessness, or deliberate actions. Tenants will be responsible to pay any charges for any such repairs it completes.
  2. In its repairs and maintenance policy, the landlord states that it will attend and complete repairs within published timescales. On its website, it states routine repairs will be completed within 28 days.
  3. The repairs and maintenance policy also states that the landlord will complete repairs and recharge a resident the cost of these if the resident is unable to complete them despite holding responsibility for doing so. It also states that it may make exceptions to this policy where a resident’s health and safety is potentially at risk, and they are unable to complete a repair they are responsible to due to age, disability, or other vulnerability.
  4. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge a complaint at stage 1 within 5 days of receipt and respond within 10 days of logging a complaint. If it requires an extension during the stage 1 investigation period, it will advise the resident of this and will not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. If it needs an extension beyond 20 working days, it will agree this with the resident. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of escalation and follows the same timings as stage 1 for extended response times.

Internal doors

  1. As part of his complaint, the resident stated that he reported 4 missing doors (hallway, kitchen, bedroom, and storage) and 3 doors needing repairs (bedroom, living room and bathroom) to the landlord on 2 September 2022. This Service has not been provided with a copy of this report. He then reported the living room door as missing on 24 October 2022. No evidence has been provided demonstrating that it attended his property between these dates, so it is unclear when the living room door was removed or who removed it. It attended on 3 January 2023 for the report to the missing door but could not access the property.
  2. The landlord raised works for the resident’s living room door on 13 January 2023. Its contractor attended the property on 13 March 2023 and found that the living room, kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, kitchen cupboard and electric and gas meter cupboard doors were missing. The contractor informed the landlord which stated that it would not have rented a property without doors. It advised him that it would replace the doors at a cost to him of £120 per door. If he did not want to pay this, it would close the job. This was a fair response in the circumstances as it had no evidence of removing the doors itself previously.
  3. In his complaint of 22 March 2023, the resident stated that he was expecting the landlord to complete repair work to internal doors in his home on 13 March 2023, but it did not do so. On the contrary, it was claiming that he was responsible for paying for replacement doors. He said that he had not done anything to cause damage to the doors and that he had gone through winter without them, causing increased energy costs.
  4. In its stage 1 complaint response on 12 April 2023, the landlord provided a series of dates between 2017 and 2022 in which the resident had reported issues with the doors. It had attended these but was unable to access the property on each occasion. On 13 March 2023 it attended and found 7 doors missing that required replacement. It explained that it would refit or repair any internal doors that were in the property at the start of his tenancy and replace any that could not be repaired, but that any that it would charge him for any missing items that needed replacing. This was a reasonable and evidence-based response. It provided information from its own repairs logs which demonstrated it had not gained access to his property in relation to doors during this time.
  5. Following this, the resident and landlord communicated throughout the remainder of April 2023. He said that it had taken the doors away 5 to 6 years ago as they were worn and had loose hinges. He was certain that it removed the doors and left them downstairs. It told him that it could not locate any record of this. It provided a full log of 9 raised repairs for internal doors between 12 April 2016 and 13 January 2023. In these reports there were only issues raised with the living room and bedroom doors. There were no reports of issues with any of the other identified missing doors.
  6. On 27 April 2023, the landlord completed a stock condition survey at the resident’s property. It noted that the kitchen door was missing, and a bedroom door was damaged and was missing the handles. It did not note any further issues with doors or that any were missing.
  7. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 9 May 2023 in relation to the outstanding works for the missing living room door. It did not complete works as he remained firm that he would not pay for these. Following this, he escalated his complaint on 24 May 2023 as he did not consider himself financially responsible for the doors.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 21 June 2023 after completing internal investigation. It had found no evidence that it had removed the resident’s doors and its evidence showed that both the living room and bedroom doors had been subject to repairs requests between 2014 and 2023. It found that the last time it had been inside his property for issues with a bedroom door only was 12 April 2016. It stated that as there was no evidence of it repairing or removing the other doors in April 2016, it would not be responsible for replacing them. It encouraged him to arrange installation of new kitchen door as soon as possible as this was a fire door. Its response was again fair and based upon historic repair records and evidence from its systems.
  9. In conclusion, the landlord has provided the resident with evidence demonstrating that it had not attended his property in relation to internal doors between April 2016 and March 2023. In this time, he had reported problems with both the living room and bedroom doors which would indicate that they had remained in place until at least 2022. This evidence supports its complaint responses in that it could not have removed the doors as reported by the resident if those doors needed repairs. It is unclear what happened to the doors but as per its repairs policy, the landlord is entitled to recharge the resident for replacements. As such, a finding of no maladministration is appropriate in this case.
  10. As the fire door is a vital safety installation, it is expected that the landlord would expedite arrangements for replacing this and then decide how it recovers the cost in accordance with its processes. It would be good practice, however, for it consider the resident’s condition and whether it could waive some of the payment for the missing doors.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for replacement internal doors.

Recommendations

  1. This Service recommends that the landlord survey the resident’s property for any required repairs to remaining doors.
  2. The landlord is strongly advised to arrange for the replacement of the fire door without further delay. It may wish to consider the resident’s health and financial situation in deciding on recharges.