Bromford Housing Group Limited (202200247)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200247

Bromford Housing Association Limited

31 May 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 handling of:
1. Remedial works to trees in the resident’s garden.
2. The replacement of front and rear doors to the property.
3. Reported repairs.
4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a three-bedroom house.
The present tenancy agreement began on 20 October 2020, on a fixed term of five years. However, the resident says he moved into the property around November 2019. The evidence this Service has seen shows repair logs at the property from November 2019, and it is accepted the resident moved into the property around this time.
This Service has seen evidence the resident suffers from depression and chronic back pain. It is also reported he was undergoing investigations for Crohn’s disease along with kidney stones around August 2021. This Service has not seen evidence the landlord has recorded these vulnerabilities since the resident raised this to the landlord by email. The landlord should record these if it has not done so already.

Scope of investigation

The resident says he reported various repair issues to the landlord since moving into his property. He confirmed he has been required to complete some of the repairs himself, but other repair issues remain outstanding.
The resident asked this Service to consider his complaint about the condition of the property from when he moved in during November 2019.
This Service has not seen evidence of which repairs issues were reported in the period after November 2019, when the resident moved into the property. It is not disputed that the resident reported concerns with the condition of the property since he moved in.
The resident formally complained to the landlord in August 2021. During discussions with the landlord whilst investigating his complaint, the resident provided the landlord with a list of outstanding repair issues which concerned him. The resident says he provided this list to the landlord around July 2021. Whilst the resident explained to this Service that he had been reporting the various repair issues individually to the landlord before July 2021, these were the outstanding issues of concern.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states:
1. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
After carefully considering all of the evidence, this Service determines the matters concerning the resident’s complaint about the condition of the property when he moved in around November 2019, are outside of the jurisdiction of this Service due to the time which has passed before he complained to the landlord. This investigation will focus upon the events that have occurred since November 2020 when further investigations into the outstanding repairs by the landlord took place and until the resident complained to this Service on 5 April 2022.

Landlord Obligations

The landlord’s repair obligations are set out at Section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) which states, the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house and keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling house for the supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation, space heating, and heating water.
The landlord’s repairing and maintenance policy sets out the following repair categories:
1. Immediate – This is for repairs which may lead to injury or property damage if left. It will attend within two hours, to make safe as a minimum but will complete a full repair if it is possible.
2. Emergency – This is repairs that pose a risk or significant impact to the safety and or, welfare of the resident and or property. It may attend within the same day. Or, if the repair poses a reduced risk if left unattended for more than two days, it will attend the day following the report.
3. Appointed repair – This is for any other repair where there is no risk of harm or significance inconvenience or impact on the resident. Its timescale for this is dependent on the resident’s requirement and the availability of its resources.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states:
1. The resident is required to notify the landlord promptly of any repair or defect which is its responsibility.
2. It is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the home. excluding glazing.
3. It is responsible for drains, basins, sinks, baths, and toilets.
The resident’s tenancy agreement also states the resident is responsible for:
1. Fencing.
2. Minor repairs to plaster cracks on walls and ceilings.
3. Minor repairs to kitchen units.
4. All internal decorations in the home.
The landlord’s repairs guidance states:
1. Residents are required to occupy and maintain their home in line with their legal occupancy agreement. It requires them to keep their home and garden in a reasonable standard of decoration, cleanliness, tidiness, and hygiene and to work with the landlord to minimise repairs expense and activity.
2. Residents are required to report repairs to the landlord at the earliest opportunity to prevent repairs becoming emergency issues, to minimise the impact of any fault and to protect the health and safety of themselves and others.
3. Residents are required to ensure that they have permission from the landlord before they undertake any property improvements themselves, and that any works are carried out strictly in accordance with the permission given.
4. It will complete repairs to the external structure and decorations as part of cyclical decorations.
5. Internal decorations are the responsibility of the resident to maintain (unless in supported housing dwellings).
6. In some cases, rooms and dwelling will be decorated and have carpets, curtains and other amenities provided and these will be maintained by the landlord (only in supported housing).
7. It will carry out repairs to clear guttering.
The landlord’s repairs guidance also states it is not responsible for certain repairs caused by fair, wear, and tear to the following:
1. The fitting or removing of carpets and other floor finishes other than those fitted by the landlord.
2. Internal decoration and filling minor internal cracks in walls.
3. Altering kitchen units to fit new appliances.
4. Inter garden fences (but will carry out repairs to boundary fences).
5. Works to trees in individual dwellings unless subject to tree preservation orders, a maintenance agreement or where they may cause damage to the property if not pruned.
6. External maintenance including mowing, pruning, weeding to non-communal areas.
The landlord’s complaints policy is a two-stage complaint process. It will aim to respond to stage one complaints within seven working days and stage two complaints within 14 days. If the resident is not satisfied with the outcome at stage one, there is criteria for escalation to stage two.
The complaint’s policy states the landlord aims to learn from mistakes and prevent similar issues through service improvement.
The landlord’s compensation procedure states:
1. If the landlord fails to carry out minor urgent repairs which affect health or safety within its timescales, the right to repair compensation is capped at £250.
2. No specific brackets of compensation are provided. It states awards of compensation are consistent with industry norms and in line with similar cases decided by the Ombudsman.

Summary of events

On 9 December 2020, the resident called the landlord for an update to replace his front and rear doors. He explained a contractor attended a few weeks earlier to complete measurements. The evidence seen by this Service does not show an update was provided to the resident.
On 12 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord asking for an update on his doors. He also reported that his neighbour’s guttering on a shelter adjacent to his property was blocked and needed clearing. Internal correspondence at the landlord confirmed an appointment would be made to inspect the guttering. The evidence seen by this Service does not show an update was provided to the resident regarding his doors.
On 3 March 2021, an internal landlord email confirmed a job had been raised regarding the guttering, but it could not be appointed to a person because jobs were being prioritised during the Covid-19 pandemic. The email also refers to a report from the resident regarding his hedges. It is unclear what the resident specifically reported to the landlord about his hedges in this email.
On 3 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to request an update on a previously reported carpet repair and works to the bush at the front of his home. This Service has not seen the original email reporting these concerns. The landlord replied on the same date, advising the maintenance of the bush was the resident’s responsibility. It also confirmed a repair job for the carpet had been logged, but due to the pandemic, it could not provide repair timescales as it is only dealing with emergency repairs at present.
On 13 March 2021, an email from the resident’s partner requested an update on the replacement doors. She explained there were gaps in the current doors causing a draught and insects were entering their property.
On 15 March 2021, the landlord responded to the resident asking for repair requests to be reported to the repairs team and provided the contact number. It notified the resident that the landlord is only dealing with emergency repairs due to the pandemic. However, its repairs team would be able to give the resident guidance on timescales.
On 15 March 2021, an internal landlord email asked for an update on an issue reported regarding large trees in the resident’s garden. It was noted this seemed to have been forgotten during pandemic restrictions. A response on the same date explained a tree surgeon attended the resident’s address and confirmed work to the resident and his neighbour’s trees needed to be completed as soon as possible, due to the council confirming there was deadwood, and it was dangerous. It also confirmed the resident was told by the local council there was a tree preservation order on the trees.
On 17 March 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm it had requested an update on the issues with the trees and the door. On 22 March 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to explain it is still waiting for an update regarding these issues.
Between 8 April 2021 and 23 April 2021, the resident chased the landlord for an update about the replacement doors twice. The landlord sent three internal emails to request an update. The landlord’s was able to confirm by internal email that the doors were due to be made at the end of April. The delay had been due to material shortages and the resident will be contacted as soon as the doors arrive. There is no evidence the resident was informed about the reasons for the delay.
On 9 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to confirm he received a letter from the council permitting the tree works from 24 November 2020. He asked the landlord to complete out these works as soon as possible. On the same date, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the job for the tree had been accepted and a reference number would be provided to him.
On 22 June 2021, the resident confirmed he had not received contact from the landlord regarding the outstanding repairs at the property. An internal email was sent to the relevant team requesting a further update. The email explained a job number was promised for the tree repairs in April 2021, noting the resident had been very patient and wanted some communication.
On 23 June 2021, the resident’s MP contacted the landlord regarding the outstanding repairs. His email explained the resident had outstanding repairs relating to:
1. His front door which was in need of replacement.
2. Black mould was present underneath the porch and, in the extractor, outlet leading into his bathroom.
3. A broken stair tread, which he feels is dangerous.
4. Damaged slabs in his garden, which he feels is a trip hazard.
On 25 June 2021, internal emails at the landlord explained it attended the resident’s property of 19 May 2021, to fit the doors. The guttering was completed on 21 April 2021. The job for the trees was logged on 26 April 2021, but was waiting to be arranged.
The landlord’s neighbourhood coach attended the resident’s property on the same date. She spoke to the resident and his partner and reported back to the landlord the following outstanding repairs:
1. The doors were replaced a few weeks ago and the resident was happy with them.
2. The trees are the main issue now, there is no light, and the grass will not grow. The garden is also full of pinecones, branches, leaves, and bird stool.
3. The lounge floor is concrete screed but has large indentations in it and there was old carpet backing stuck to it.
4. There is a split in one of the stair treads and no carpet on the stairs or landing.
5. Photographs of the paving slabs were taken. An internet link to a YouTube video the resident posted to show uneven garden slabs was also provided.
6. The mould referred to was on the outside of the property and the neighbourhood coach believed this was more dirt.
On 6 July 2021, the landlord sent an inspector to the resident’s property to assess the reported repair works. The resident stated he provided the inspector with a printed-out list of his issues with the property, some of which he had already fixed. He believed the list would be communicated back to the landlord to action. This document states:
1. The resident cleared debris from the guttering as the landlord did not do this when he moved into the property.
2. The resident was unhappy with the workmanship of the landlord’s landscaping team which trimmed his hedges.
3. The pine trees around his rear garden block sunlight and allow birds to defecate in his garden. He is also unhappy at the pine needles which littered his garden and the pinecones falling made the garden unsafe and unusable.
4. A tree preservation order on the pine trees was lifted for pruning and removal of branches by the landlord on 4 January 2021. However, the landlord said the work to cut the trees down could not be carried out until after 24 November 2021. He hoped the landlord would have acted sooner.
5. The tree in his garden was pruned three weeks prior. However, the landlord did not obtain permission from the local council to prune the surrounding trees outside of his garden in neighbouring properties. Therefore, he still suffered the same issues with blocked sunlight and birds defecating in his garden.
6. It took a long time to replace the front and back doors. He was unhappy with the look of the back door due to the choice of washers used to hold the frame into the brickwork. Cheap doors were used, and this meant there was no hinge adjustment.
7. Fence panel slats were broken when he moved into the property. He replaced these himself.
8. The kitchen space is unsuitable. He states there is a lack of cupboards in the kitchen. It is unsuitable for a three-bed property to have minimal and small cupboard space. He requested more cupboard space but was informed the landlord would not fit this.
9. A broken stair tread took 18 months to be fixed by the landlord. Once it was fixed, the edges needed to be sanded or painted but this was not completed.
10. The paving slabs in his rear garden were uneven and are a trip hazard.
11. The stair handrail was loose at the upper end. He confirmed he repaired the hole in the wall and added more fixings to secure it.
12. Neighbouring fence panels were in disrepair. The posts are also poorly fitted and lean and wobble. He will be repairing this himself.
13. The chipboard flooring had been previously cut into to access wires or pipework underneath. It was not reinforced once the panel was reattached and caused the flooring to sag when walked on. The resident fixed this himself.
14. The extractor fan in the bathroom was not properly secured to the ceiling and was hanging off since he moved into the property. The extractor hose behind the extractor was also not properly attached, which caused condensation to be extracted into the loft. The resident repaired this himself.
15. Three tiles around the bath were coming away from the wall due to water trapped behind them. The resident repaired this himself and spent £30 on materials. He sourced the replacement tiles for free.
16. The quality of paint to the internal walls was poor and there were marks on the walks.
17. There are two types of lighting in the kitchen. He wanted a pendant light removed.
18. The smoke alarm was too close to the oven and resulted in the smoke alarm going off regularly. The maker of smoke alarm states it should be 1.5 metres away from the oven however, it is only 1 metre away from the oven in the property. He requested this be moved to 1.5 metres away from the oven.
19. The toilet was replaced, and old kitchen cupboards were used to attach the toilet to the wall. He asked an independent plumber to look at this and was told the work is not up to standard because there is too many shut off valves and pipework.
20. The flooring in the lounge is damaged due to there being latex poured directly on top of foam backed carpet. The landlord’s contractor arrived at his property to measure up for replacement carpets. The contractor informed the resident that carpet could not be laid on the lounge floor because it is coming up. The resident says he has cold unusable flooring because of this.
The inspection report is dated 9 July 2021. It details the work required is to carry out repairs to the staircase and to the rear garden paving slabs. An inspection of the lounge flooring is noted to require further inspection from a flooring specialist to advise if a repair or replacement was needed. An appointment was made for 10 August 2021, for a team to attend the resident’s property to carry out repairs to the staircase and garden slabs.
On 6 August 2021, the resident complained to the landlord by email. He raised concerns with the delays to carry out work to the trees in his garden and also complained about the time delay to replace his front and back doors. He also refers to his complaint concerning the list of repair issues he provided the landlord’s inspector in July 2021, which were outstanding. The resident also informed the landlord he suffered with a bad back and depression.
On 12 August 2021, an internal landlord email discussed a conversation it had with the local council regarding the tree preservation order. The landlord confirmed the order gave the landlord two years to complete the works from 4 January 2021 when permission was granted. It also confirmed it cannot complete works between 1 March and 31 August due to nesting birds.
On 12 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord following the repair team’s attendance to repair the garden slabs. He raised concerns with the job not being completed properly and the team repaired four slabs instead of six.
the landlord replied to the resident’s email explaining it could not provide the resident a response to the update he provided as it would require senior management permission. It also asked if the resident wanted to make the concerns previously raised a formal complaint.
On 13 August 2021, the resident confirmed he wanted to make the previously raised concerns a formal complaint.
On 25 November 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP. It confirmed:
1. The repair works to the stairs have been completed.
2. The flooring was repaired, and the outside slabs were levelled on 16 and 17 November 2021.
3. The smoke alarm would be inspected.
On 15 December 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and explained the slabs outside were not repaired by the landlord’s contractor. The workmanship of the repair to the stairs was poor and he had to sand down the filler that was left. He also explained he was unavailable for a visit from the landlord due to a hospital appointment. He had not been contacted for a rearranged appointment. This Service believes this appointment was in relation to the smoke alarm.
On 31 January 2022, the resident provided further documentation to the landlord to assist with its investigation of his complaint. This Service has not been provided with the document attached. On 1 February 2022, the landlord confirmed receipt of the resident’s email and explained it would return to the resident once it had considered the information.
On 15 February 2022, the resident chased a response from the landlord regarding his complaint.
On 18 February 2022:
1. The landlord emailed the resident confirming it had reviewed the information the resident provided. It explained it would honour the £250 compensation offered to him previously as resolution of his complaint. It confirmed it did not believe there was a service failure in respect of the repairs list the resident provided to the inspector. It explained the specific works the resident reported when he moved into his property have been rectified however, no explanation was provided at this point. It apologised for the frustration and distress caused by these issues.
2. The resident emailed the landlord to accept the £250 compensation offer. He explained he has not however had a resolution to the other issues he has raised, such as kitchen cupboards, smoke alarm position, fences, and the toilet.
3. The landlord replied explaining the kitchen cupboards are not classed as a repair and it would not attend to fit further cupboards. It noted the kitchen was in satisfactory condition. The smoke alarms would be reviewed and checked for safety within annual safety checks. The inter-garden fencing is not its responsibility. The toilet would not be replaced as it is adequately functioning.
Between 18 February 2022 and 1 March 2022, the landlord and resident exchanged emails addressing the payment of the £250 compensation and discussing the respective positions.
On 1 March 2022, the landlord emailed the resident setting out its position on each point raised in the resident’s list of repairs to provide further explanation. Its response can be summarised as:
1. £250 was offered to the resident to cover the costs and time spent in carrying out repairs to blocked guttering, boundary fencing panels, extractor fan and bathroom tiling.
2. The overgrown hedges at the front of the property were untidy. The landlord’s landscaping team pruned back these bushes since it was reported. However, the landlord maintains it is the responsibility of the resident to maintain all bushes and shrubs within his garden.
3. The trees in the resident’s garden will not be removed as they are not dead, dangerous, or diseased. The trees were however cut back to a manageable height.
4. The landlord apologised regarding the resident’s issue with his kitchen cupboard space not being large enough. However, it explained the resident accepted the property in the condition it was in when agreeing to move into the property. It would only consider replacing the kitchen when it is due to be replaced in line with its planned maintenance programme. It would not provide more cupboard space.
5. The stair treads were identified as an issue during its surveyor visit and repair work has been completed to rectify this issue.
6. The landlord does not consider the reported uneven paving slabs in the resident’s garden to be a health and safety issue. Its surveyor did not identify an issue with the paving slab when they were reviewed. The resident has also not reported this issue to the landlord’s customer service team.
7. The resident did not report issues with the stair rail to its customer service team for a repair to be inspected.
8. The neighbouring fence panel is not the landlord’s responsibility, it is between the resident and his neighbour to resolve. It recommends the resident works with his neighbour to resolve the issue and share the costs.
9. The landlord explained it is not responsible for the decoration in the property. It explained the resident accepted the property in its current condition and whilst it apologised the resident was unhappy with decoration and a kitchen pendant light, it was not required to make alterations or change the position of the light.
10. The bathroom toilet was in working order. It appreciated the resident was unhappy with the condition however, it could be used and would not be replaced.
11. The landlord explained it is only responsible for the condition of the bathroom and kitchen flooring, therefore the if the resident is unhappy with the lounge flooring, the resident is responsible for its removal.
On 22 March 2022, the landlord provided its stage one response in letter format. It contained the same information as its email to the resident, along with providing the resident with information on how to contact this Service.
On 23 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to request his complaint be escalated to stage two as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. On the same date, the landlord confirmed it would review whether the resident’s request met its grounds to escalate to stage two of its complaint procedure.
On 30 March 2022, internal landlord emails state the landlord considered the matter resolved and it is not making any further contact with the resident. A further internal email confirmed the landlord would not escalate the matter to stage two. This Service has not seen evidence the resident was provided with confirmation of this decision or an explanation why the landlord would not escalate the matter to stage two.
On 5 April 2022, the resident complained to this Service.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its Dispute Resolution Principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.

b. Put things right, and.

c. Learn from outcomes.

Remedial works to trees in the resident’s garden

The evidence seen by this Service, described the resident had a long-standing issue with the trees around his rear garden. He reported to the landlord that the trees caused birds to defecate in his garden, pine needles were littered around his garden, pinecones fell off the tree and were dangerous. He also explained the trees were too tall and blocked light into his garden. This Service acknowledges pandemic restrictions were in place during the period when the tree issues were reported.
A tree preservation order was in place. The local council tree preservation order dated 4 January 2021, gave the landlord permission to carry various alteration works to the pine tree in the resident’s garden. It allowed for the removal of deadwood, pruning, removal of some branches and removal of tree stubs from previous pruning operations. It did not permit for the tree to be fully removed.
The tree preservation order prevented works being carried out if a bird is nesting in the tree. It also prevented works being carried out between 1 March and 31 August in any year, where birds may reasonably be expected to make their nests.
The landlord applied for permission from the local council to carry out remedial works to the tree around October 2020. On 4 January 2021, the local council confirmed various alterations could be made to the tree. The works were required to be completed by 4 January 2023.
The evidence seen by this Service shows the resident contacted the landlord requesting an update on the tree works several times from at between March 2021 to June 2021. It is noted internal emails were also sent requesting information so the resident could be provided with an estimated timescale. It was not until 9 June 2021, a job for tree works was logged and confirmed to the resident. The evidence suggests the resident was provided with an estimated date of 24 November 2021 for the tree works to be completed.
This Service acknowledges the pressure caused by the pandemic which required the landlord to prioritise emergency repairs only. However, the evidence seen shows the landlord did not reasonably communicate with the resident to confirm it received the order allowing the tree works to be carried out following 4 January 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord several times for an update since 4 January 2021. He also contacted the local council on 9 June 2021, which confirmed an order allowing the works had been granted. The resident was not informed of the order in place until six months after it was provided to the landlord. This was unreasonable.
Furthermore, the resident believed the order allowed the works to take place at any point until 4 January 2023. Whilst this was not accurate, the landlord did not take steps to explain its position with the resident regarding the restrictions on the order.
Due to the order restricting works between March and August, the landlord had approximately two months to arrange for completion of the tree works from receiving permission before it was prohibited from carrying out the work. This Service recognises the timeframe of two months may have been unsuitable to arrange the works and it may not have been considered an emergency work under its pandemic repairs plan. However, this Service has not seen evidence the landlord communicated with the resident and provided an explanation of its plans to complete the remedial work.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence the remedial works have since been completed. However, the landlord should have better communicated with the resident regarding the tree works and managed the resident’s expectations. Whilst this Service acknowledges the landlord was restricted in carrying out the work between March and August, its communication with the resident was unsatisfactory. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s communication was a service failure.

The replacement of front and rear doors to the property.

The evidence seen by this Service, describes the resident had a long-standing issue with the replacement of his front and back doors.
The resident’s email on 9 December 2020, confirmed a contractor came to his property to take door measurements. However, no further update was provided on the expected timescale for the doors to be replaced.
The resident contacted the landlord to request an update on the replacement of the doors five times between 9 December 2020 and 19 April 2021. It is seen the resident explained to the landlord the doors were not suitable and let in a draught causing the heat in the home to escape.
The landlord sent internal emails to the relevant team handling the replacement. However, the landlord was unable to provide an update to the resident with an expected timescale of when the doors would be replaced.
On 23 April 2021, an internal email confirmed there had been a delay obtaining the doors due to material shortages. It confirmed the resident would be contacted when the doors arrived which was expected at the end of April 2021. This Service has not seen evidence this was communicated to the resident. Neither has it been seen the landlord informed the resident of the reason for the delays previously when the resident contacted the landlord for an update.
Internal email correspondence confirmed the doors were eventually fitted on 19 May 2021. The evidence provided does not confirm how the landlord prioritised the repair however, it is noted the replacement took longer than what would reasonably expect within the landlord’s repair and maintenance policy. However, it is accepted the reason for the delay was due to material shortages and during the pandemic, which was something outside of the landlord’s control.
The landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the replacement of the doors was poor. It was aware of the reasons for the delay but withheld this information from the resident. It also did not advise the resident of the expected timescales for the replacement to take place. The landlord’s communication was a service failure.

Reported repairs

The resident says he reported various repairs to the landlord throughout his tenancy, which he believed were required to bring the property up to his satisfaction. The resident confirmed he completed repair works himself to the following:
1. Blocked guttering.
2. Boundary fence panels.
3. Bathroom extractor fan.
4. Bathroom tiling.
5. Stair’s handrail
6. Chipboard flooring reinforcement.
The resident’s tenancy agreement required the resident to notify the landlord promptly of any repair or defect which is its responsibility.
The landlord’s repairs guidance also states residents are required to report repairs to the landlord at the earliest opportunity to prevent repairs becoming emergency issues, to minimise the impact of any fault and to protect the health and safety of themselves and others.
The landlord stated in its complaint response dated 22 March 2022, the resident did not report the clearing of the guttering to its customer service team in order for a repair job to be raised. This Service does not dispute that the resident did not report these repairs however, this Service has not been provided with evidence these reports were made by the resident to the landlord prior to the resident providing the landlord with a list of repair issues on 6 July 2021. Where the Ombudsman does not have enough evidence to determine whether the resident reported the various repair issues prior to 6 July 2021, the Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s handling of the reported repairs after this date.
In its complaint response, the landlord accepted the resident completed repairs to several issues raised in his list of repairs. It offered the resident £250 compensation in line with its compensation procedure for right to repair as a gesture to the resident for carrying out this work himself and incurring a cost for materials used. This was good practice by the landlord to provide the resident with compensation reflecting the repairs he carried out and in line with its policy.
The resident also raised a number of repairs in his list of repairs which the landlord said was the resident’s responsibility within its complaint response:
1. Overgrown hedges at the front of the property.
2. Broken inter-garden fence panels.
3. Marked internal walls and poor paintwork.
4. Dislike of kitchen lighting and lamp shade.
5. Lounge flooring.
The landlord’s repair guidance sets out:
1. It does not carry out maintenance of non-communal external areas for activities including mowing, pruning, and weeding.
2. It is the resident’s responsibility to repair inter-garden fences.
3. It will only complete works to internal decoration such as walls and internal decorations if the decoration is required to bring the property up to standard. It will not fill minor internal cracks in walls or carry out internal decoration.
4. It will not fit or remove carpets and other floor finishes other than those fitted by the landlord.
The resident’s tenancy agreement also states the resident is responsible for:
1. Fencing.
2. Minor repairs to plaster cracks on walls and ceilings.
3. Minor repairs to kitchen units.
4. All internal decorations in the home.
On 6 July 2021, the landlord’s inspector attended the resident’s property. The job description for the attendance required a full inspection of the property. The resident confirmed he provided the inspector with a list of all the repair issues. Following inspection, the inspector’s report did not identify any problems with the internal decoration of the property which would meet the landlord’s policy requirements to provide repair. The inspector did however identify the resident’s carpet may require repair and arranged for a flooring contractor to attend the resident’s property to assess whether the carpet required repair or replacement.
This Service has considered the images of the paintwork the resident provided. It can be seen there are some marks on the walls and ceiling. There is also a larger mark on a bathroom wall. This Service acknowledges the resident’s dissatisfaction with the quality of the paint work. However, this Service does not consider the images show signs that the property is not up to a liveable standard.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of issues regarding the maintenance of the resident’s hedges, inter-garden fencing and internal decoration relating to the painting and kitchen lighting was in line with its responsibilities which are set out within the resident’s tenancy agreement and it’s repairs guidance. Whilst the resident believes these should be repaired or replaced, it is the opinion of the Ombudsman the landlord has acted appropriately in its decision not to carry out any remedial work in respect of these raised issues and in line with its relevant policies.
The inspector’s report required further inspection of the lounge flooring by a flooring specialist to understand whether it required repair or a replacement. This Service has not been provided with the assessment of the carpet by the landlord’s flooring specialist. This Service notes the resident referred to the flooring specialist arriving at his property and the expert confirmed carpet could not be laid down in the affected area because it is coming up. The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the carpet requires replacement or repair. However, the evidence presented to this Service shows the landlord took steps to investigate how it could resolve this issue and referred to a flooring specialist service. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was an appropriate response.
The landlord’s complaint response also addressed the following issues in the resident’s list of repairs:
1. Broken stair treads.
2. Uneven garden slabs.
3. Ongoing issues with the kitchen space.
4. The toilet’s structure.
The inspector’s report identified issues with a broken stair tread and also the uneven garden slabs. It recommended an overhaul of the existing staircase with various repairs to fix the stair treads and loose items. It also recommended repairs to fix the garden slabs to fill soft spots and re-bed existing flags with cement to level it. An appointment was made for 10 August 2021. The Ombudsman is concerned the landlord did not recognise repair works to the paving slabs were carried out when providing its complaint response.
On 12 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord following its attendance to repair the garden slabs. He raised concern with the job not being completed properly and the team repaired four slabs instead of six. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to explain if the landlord attended the property to complete further repairs to the slabs. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have inspected the resident’s report of the unsuitable repair further in line with its repairing and maintaining policy and should provide the resident with clarification on whether further repair is required.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence the resident reported the broken stair tread and uneven garden slabs before his MP contacted the landlord on 23 June 2021. The Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s account that he reported these several times prior to 23 June 2021.
Within the resident’s list of issues provided to the landlord on 16 July 2021, the resident said the landlord’s treatment of him, and his family had caused his mental and physical health to suffer. This Service has also seen resident reported he suffered from a bad back and depression to the landlord by email on 6 August 2021. This Service has not seen evidence to suggest the landlord considered the impact of the outstanding works and if any reasonable adjustment or priority should have been given to any of the repairs that remained unresolved.
Whilst the landlord states the resident did not report his concerns about the paving slabs or stair treads previously, the landlord was aware of this by at least 23 June 2021 when it received the MP’s letter. Following the resident’s report of his physical health being affected on 16 July 2021, the landlord should have made further enquiries and considered whether the repairs reported required an immediate response due to a health and safety risk. The landlord failed to uphold its repairing and maintaining policy which should have applied.
This Service has not seen evidence the landlord considered a potential safety risk to the resident regarding the stair treads or garden slabs. The landlord did not arrange an inspection until 10 August 2021, despite it being reported on 23 June 2021. This was a delay of six weeks. The landlord’s handling of this aspect of the resident’s reported repairs was unreasonable and was not in line with its policy.
The landlord confirmed it would not install new cupboard space to the kitchen. It explained the resident accepted the kitchen in the condition it was in when agreeing to move into the property. It referred the resident to its website to make a customer improvement request. The landlord also explained any replacements to the kitchen will be made in line with its planned maintenance programme when the kitchen is due for replacement. This is in line with the landlord’s repairs guidance. However, this Service has not seen evidence the landlord has provided the resident with further information on when this would take place.
The landlord confirmed that it would not make alterations to the structure of the toilet. It explained to the resident the toilet was functional and did not need replacing.
This Service does not disagree with the landlord’s approach regarding the cupboard space in the kitchen or the toilet. Whilst the resident is dissatisfied with the space available, the resident accepted the kitchen as it was. The toilet is also described by the landlord as functional. Whilst the resident has concerns with the pipework and there being too many shut off valves, the landlord is not required to provide a replacement under its policies. This Service recognises it is frustrating for the resident to not have the kitchen space he believes is suitable and a toilet which is not to his satisfaction. However, this Service found the landlord’s response to be in line with its repairing obligations and was appropriate in this regard to these issues.
The resident has presented the landlord with a thorough list of repair issues he either repaired himself or felt the landlord should repair. The landlord has acted in line with its policies and the tenancy agreement by refusing to carry out certain repairs where it was determined the responsibility of the resident. It also acted appropriately by compensating the resident for the repair work he completed himself. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, whilst overall the landlord took a reasonable response, the landlord failed to take into account the concerns the resident raised and fell outside of its policy position at times. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported repairs is service failure.

Complaint handling

On 6 August 2021, the resident complaint to the landlord by email. The landlord did not provide the resident with acknowledgement of his complaint.
On 12 August 2021, the landlord responded to a further email from the resident and asked if he wanted to make his complaint formal. The resident confirmed he did.
The landlord should have recognised the resident was making at complaint on 6 August 2021, and provided an acknowledgement, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord’s complaint handling led to a delay and was unreasonable here.
The landlord’s complaint’s policy states it will deal with all formal complaints at stage one and will aim to respond within seven days. However, if the complaint is complex, it will discuss and agree an extension of the timescale directly with the resident.
This Service has not seen evidence the landlord provided the resident with acknowledgement of his complaint on 12 August 2021. This Service has also not seen evidence the landlord contacted the resident to agree a new timescale if it felt it could not respond to the resident’s complaint by 19 August 2021.
The landlord did not provide a formal complaint response to the resident until 22 March 2022. This was a delay of seven months since the resident complained.
Whilst this Service has seen correspondence discussing a compensatory amount between the resident and landlord before this date, there is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with an explanation for the delay or requested an extension to provide its formal complaint response at a later date. This delay was unreasonable. It was also not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy timescales and this Service’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord’s complaints policy says if the resident is not satisfied with the outcome at stage one, or the actions agreed have not been completed, they have the right to request their complaint is reviewed at stage two.
On 23 March 2022, the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage two. He did not agree with the decision to deny his request for the repairs to be completed. The landlord refused to provide a stage two response. This Service has not seen evidence the landlord explained to the resident why it would not escalate his complaint to stage two.
While the landlord believed it was not reasonable to escalate the complaint to stage two as part of its complaints policy, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states “If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one it must be progressed to stage two of the landlord’s procedure, unless an exclusion ground now applies”. The exclusion grounds were not properly applied here.
It is the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord acted unreasonably by providing its stage one response seven months after the resident complained. The delay left the resident in the complaints process, without a clear resolution. The landlord did not provide the resident with an explanation for its delay or apologise to the resident for its delay.
It also acted unreasonably by not escalating the complaint to stage two which was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The resident disputed the landlord’s position regarding the decision not to complete the reported repairs, therefore the complaint at stage one remained unresolved. The landlord should use its complaint process to seek to resolve matters at the earliest opportunity. The landlord failed to do this and failed to actively listen to the resident’s concerns. It is the opinion of this Service the landlord’s complaint handling was maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of remedial works to trees in the resident’s garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the replacement of front and rear doors to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reported repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The evidence reviewed shows the resident was concerned about the delays to complete the remedial work to the tree and provide replacement front and rear property doors. It took approximately six months before the landlord confirmed it had received permission to carry out the tree remedial works and a target date for completion was provided. The resident was not kept informed about the delays to providing replacement doors to his property.
This is a significant amount of time for the resident to have been distressed. The resident was also inconvenienced by regularly emailing the landlord for an update on both the tree works and door replacements. The landlord was aware there was a delay in sourcing materials to build the doors however, it did not communicate this with the resident, despite several emails requesting an update on the delay. The landlord should have provided the resident with a timescale for the repairs and provided an explanation for the delays, managing the resident’s expectations. It failed to do this.
It was noted on the resident’s file he suffered from depression and a bad back. The landlord failed to conduct a risk assessment of the resident’s physical and mental health. It did not consider whether reasonable adjustments were required when arranging the inspection and carrying out reported repairs. It also failed to meet the timescales set out in its repairing and maintenance policy.
The landlord’s complaint handling was unreasonable and took seven months to provide its stage one response. The landlord should also have escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaint’s procedure.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident by its handling of the complaint of reported repairs.
3. Pay the resident £400 compensation, in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident for poor complaint handling.
If repairs of the lounge flooring and garden slabs have not yet been completed, within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Contact the resident to form an action plan, assessing what is required to complete these repairs and agree this with the resident.
2. Provide the resident with timescales for completion of the works.
3. If the landlord is unable to complete this within four weeks, it should communicate with the resident and agree a new timescale for the repairs to be completed.
The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance of the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Review its complaints handling procedure to ensure it is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
2. Record the resident’s vulnerabilities if it has not done so already.