Magenta Living (202327985)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327985

Magenta Living

13 March 2025

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:
   1. Requests for a replacement front door.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

2. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the top floor of a low rise block. The resident is a secure tenant and the landlord is a housing association. The resident has lived in the property since 2010.
3. On 19 August 2022 the resident requested a new front door as other residents in the block had received one. The landlord referred to a stock survey that had been completed in 2021 and informed the resident her front door was not due for renewal.
4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 21 July 2023, stating she felt singled out as her neighbours had received new front doors and she had not. The landlord responded that there were no imminent plans for a replacement door and any issues with the door would be dealt with as repairs.
5. The resident complained to the landlord again on 29 September 2023 about the same issue. The landlord responded with a letter stating the complaint was declined because it had already been dealt with. The landlord confirmed its stage 1 position and said the resident could escalate the matter if she wished.
6. A contractor visited the property on 18 December 2023 following a repair request. It was assessed that the resident should receive a replacement door because, while the current one appeared fit for purpose, it should be brought in line with other residents’ doors which had been upgraded.
7. The resident’s front door was replaced in July 2024. The resident is seeking compensation for the inconvenience caused by the delay.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the request for a replacement front door

8. As part of a wider stock condition survey, the landlord’s contractor attended the property on 14 April 2021. It noted there were no issues and estimated renewal for the front door was 2026/2027.
9. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 August, 4 October and 2 December 2022 to ask why she did not have a new front door when her neighbours had all received replacements. Internal communication showed landlord staff querying whether the resident was due a new door and concluding not as the survey had assessed it for renewal in 2026/2027. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the information from the survey and this was communicated to the resident.
10. Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint, internal communication showed a landlord staff member not being able to see records of other residents’ doors being replaced and therefore querying this. The neighbours’ doors had in fact been replaced with new fire doors, so the fact the staff member could not see this evidenced either poor record keeping or an issue with communication.
11. The landlord told the resident she should raise any repair issues as normal. It said that, as a social landlord and registered charity, value for money was central. Therefore, repairs would always take precedence over replacement. This would have been an understandable position for the landlord to take had the rest of the block not received new fire doors. However, in this case, the landlord did not recognise the resident’s request as being reasonable.
12. On 6 October 2023 there was internal communication where the landlord noted the resident should be contacted to see if any repairs were required. It stated it was important any repairs were scheduled as it had declined the request for a new front door. This was positive and appropriate from the landlord, to ensure it was responsive to any repair needs the resident may have.
13. The resident raised a repair request on 17 November 2023, stating her front door frame was loose and the property was cold due to gaps around it. The contractor attended on 18 December 2023, 21 working days later and on target as per the landlord’s repairs policy. The contractor determined that the resident needed a new front door, a fire door, as she was the only one in the block without one.
14. This contradicted the information the resident had been given previously. It showed error in either record keeping or communication that the resident was informed she was not due a replacement door when, in fact, her door needed to be upgraded in line with other residents. This amounts to service failure. It is understandable that the resident was frustrated in what the landlord had previously told her.
15. There was internal communication on 31 May 2024 where it was noted someone needed to visit the property to assess whether the front door needed to be upgraded in line with other fire doors in the block. It stated the resident currently had a Georgian wire glass timber door which met regulations but should likely be replaced. It was disappointing this had not already happened when a contractor had already recommended a replacement door in December 2023. However there was no breach of the landlord’s repair policy as a replacement door, where the original is not faulty, is classed as property improvement work and not given target timescales.
16. On the same day, a contractor visited the property and measured up for a new door. It was estimated it would take 2-3 weeks for delivery and then an installation date would be arranged. The contractor assessed the existing door as “fine” and it was not damaged or warped. It was acknowledged the resident deemed it not fit for purpose because she was the only one to not receive a new one.
17. The resident contacted us on 22 July 2024 to update that her front door had been replaced. While there is no evidence the old door was causing the resident detriment, its replacement was delayed because of misunderstandings regarding the upgrade work occurring in the block. It was unfair to the resident that she was the only one to not receive an upgrade and incorrect information was provided until a contractor identified that her door should be replaced too. While frustrating, this is assessed as service failure rather than maladministration as there was no significant or long term impact on the resident. The old front door was outdated but not unsafe or damaged.
18. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation for time and trouble as a result of its service failure regarding the replacement of the front door. This is in line with our own remedies guidance for findings of service failure.

Handling of the associated formal complaint

19. Following the resident’s complaint of 21 July 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 26 July 2023, well within the target timescale. It said it had liaised with the asset management investments team and determined the resident’s front door was not scheduled for renewal until 2035/2036. This was incorrect, as the survey had assessed it for 2026/2027. It was inappropriate and inaccurate to give the resident this information. The landlord said there was no investment programme going ahead in the block for the renewal of front doors. This was also incorrect, as other residents had been fitted with new fire doors. It appears the fire doors were a different project to standard renewal and this may have caused the confusion. However, it is not acceptable for the landlord to be unaware of this and pass the wrong information to the resident.
20. The resident was correct that her neighbours had received new doors but, in its stage 1 response, the landlord was unaware of this and did not accept it. The complaint was not upheld because the front door did not meet the criteria for replacement following the survey. This did not take into account the replacement of doors for new fire doors. The stage 1 response was therefore based on inaccurate information, which was not fair to the resident and amounted to service failure.
21. The resident contacted the landlord to complain about the same issue on 29 September 2023. We have not seen the exact communication to determine whether this was written as a new complaint or an escalation request. Regardless, the landlord’s complaint policy defines stage 2 of its complaint process as being applicable where the complaint “has not been resolved to the resident’s reasonable satisfaction.” This should have been applied here and the resident’s complaint escalated, as it was about the same issue.
22. The landlord responded on 6 October 2023 to decline the complaint, stating it was unable to address the resident’s concerns through the complaints procedure because the issue had already been dealt with in a previous stage 1 response. This was not in accordance with its policy regarding stage 2 and was not fair to the resident. The landlord made reference to section 3.8 of its complaints policy, which states it will not investigate complaints that had been dealt with under this policy. While the resident had received a stage 1 response, the complaint had not gone to stage 2, so the complaint had not been dealt with entirely under the policy. This amounts to service failure.
23. In its response of 6 October 2023 the landlord included much of the same information that would have been expected in a stage 2 response, even though it was declining the complaint. It said the stock survey assessed the door was fit for purpose and met safety regulations. It said that, if the resident remained dissatisfied, she could escalate the matter as explained in the stage1 response. This was confusing and contradictory.
24. The resident had expressed dissatisfaction by contacting the landlord on 29 September 2023, after the stage 1 response. Therefore, declining the complaint but inviting her to escalate if unhappy was adding an unnecessary step and making her feel ignored and misunderstood. It is recognised that, in this letter, the landlord did confirm its position regarding the subject of the complaint. Therefore, even though it was classed as a ‘decline’ letter it did not appear to affect the overall issue and its response was the same as it would have been if it had been a stage 2 response letter. 
25. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states “If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure.” The Code became statutory on 1 April 2024, meaning that landlords are obliged by law to follow its requirements.
26. In recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its service failure in complaint handling, the landlord is ordered to pay £50 compensation.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Requests for a replacement front door.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Orders

28. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation, made up of:
    1. £100 for service failure regarding replacement of the front door.
    2. £50 for service failure in complaint handling.