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

Peabody Trust 2018 (202007451)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007451

Peabody Trust 2018

29 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s decision to not carry out additional repairs to a bike shed door.

Background and summary of events

  1. Damage to the bike shed door of the property was reported to the landlord on 7 November 2019. The landlord responded to a complaint about the delay in completing the repairs raised by another leaseholder of the property, in which it agreed to waive 50% of the cost of the repairs that would be charged to leaseholders of the property.
  2. The Ombudsman Service received seven identical complaint submissions from leaseholders of properties on the estate. In accordance with paragraph 48 of the Scheme, this Service handled these complaints as a single investigation. The determination addressing the delays regarding the repairs to the bike shed was issued on 15 December 2020.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 February 2020 and noted that the bike shed had been replaced but the frame had not been replaced as had been previously suggested. He provided photographs of the door and highlighted damage to the frame that had not been repaired and that there was a gap at the top of the door. He did not consider the new door to be secure and said it was not aesthetically pleasing. He therefore requested that the landlord rectify the issues. In a separate email sent the same day, the resident said that the door on the shed did not close properly as it caught the fob sensor. As a result, he considered the work done by the landlord’s contractor to be poor workmanship.
  4. In the landlord’s response of 20 February 2020, it said that it had received a report and pictures from the contractor showing that the work had passed inspection. However, a post inspection was being carried out by a surveyor that day and it would provide a further response once this was completed. The landlord then sent a further email that day to all leaseholders, confirming that it had received the post inspection report and recommendations had been made to make the door easier to open and shut by moving the fob box.
  5. The surveyor had concluded that, although not perfect, it was fit for purpose. The landlord said that the repair carried out was acceptable and that the gap at the top of the door was not a security issue as there was no gap behind it. It acknowledged that there were small scratches on the frame, but they had been painted and therefore felt that a new frame was unnecessary. It concluded that the bike storage was fit for use and could be used moving forward but it would arrange for the fob box to be moved as recommended.
  6. Another resident responded the same day and said they were unhappy with the repair and they believed the door could be forced open easily. They said that it had previously been recommended that a metal frame be fitted and wanted to know why this had not been done.
  7. The landlord responded to the email and copied in all residents on 6 March 2020. It said it had asked for a review of the repair and it had been agreed that the frame needed replacing, preferably with a metal one. It said it would arrange for the contractor to assess if this was possible and advised that there might be a reason why it could not be done.
  8. In the resident’s email of 15 June 2020, he stated that the frame had still not been repaired or replaced (as there was still visible damage) and if the landlord considered that a repair had been completed, he was unhappy with the quality of the work. The landlord acknowledged the email the same day and said it would review the matter with the repairs department and provide a response.
  9. In the absence of a response, the resident sent a chaser on 29 June 2020, requesting an update. The landlord acknowledged the email the same day and said that work to move the fob box had been completed to stop it interfering with the opening and closing of the door. It said that it was still waiting for the inspection report on the frame.
  10. On 30 June 2020, the landlord sent a copy of the report it had received from its quality inspector to the resident. The report noted that there were signs of damage on the frame but that these were cosmetic and did not affect the door. It also noted that the door had been installed poorly as it was not closing flush and that the metal sheet over the front of the door had not been finished off. It recommended that this needed to be made good. The inspector concluded that, once the recommended works were completed, the door would be fit for purpose and said that the job for the overhaul of the door would be raised. The landlord said that the work would be carried out as soon as possible.
  11. The resident responded to the landlord the same day, acknowledging that the damage to the frame was cosmetic but saying that leaseholders had paid for it to be repaired and be made to look good. He asked the landlord to confirm that the frame would also be repaired. In the landlord’s response it advised that it would not be carrying out repairs to the cosmetic damage on the door frame. Its responsibility was to ensure that communal equipment was fit for purpose and it would only focus on cosmetic issues if it was really unsightly and out in view, which this was not.
  12. The resident emailed the landlord on 1 July 2020 and disagreed with its comments. He said that the frame was damaged on the outside and that he felt the patch up repair in December 2019 fell short of what was expected. He also said that the replacement of the door would not prevent a future break in attempt using the same method as before. In the landlord’s reply of 7 July 2020, it acknowledged the resident’s comments but said that the decision not to replace the door or carryout repairs to the frame remained unchanged.
  13. The resident escalated his complaint on 27 August 2020 and the landlord issued a stage two response on 21 September 2020. It noted that there had been delays in arranging the work to carry out the adjustment to the fob box on the door and to assess if a metal frame was needed. It said that this was due to the COVID lockdown during which time it was prioritising essential repairs. Its contractor had inspected the door on 14 April 2020 and concluded that a new frame was not necessary as the shed was deemed to be safe to use. The landlord said that, in line with its repairs policy, it would always carry out a repair if possible, instead of a replacement.
  14. The landlord noted that a further inspection was carried out on 29 June 2020 for quality in response to the resident’s comments and this identified that some overhauling work was needed but that the door was fit for purpose. The final decision not to replace the frame or carryout cosmetic repairs remained unchanged. However, it acknowledged that there were delays in providing the stage two response and offered £75 compensation in that regard.

Assessment and findings

  1. In accordance with the terms of the lease, the landlord is responsible for the repair, redecoration and renewal of the structure in which the bike shed is included. As a result, it was necessary for it to investigate the resident’s concerns about the condition of the bike shed, and to take appropriate steps to resolve any issues it identified. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord accepted this obligation and applied resources to assessing the situation, by arranging for the bike shed to be inspected on several occasions.
  2. It is clear that the landlord and resident disagreed on whether the cosmetic damage to the bike shed should be repaired, whether the repair carried out previously was safe, and whether a metal frame should be fitted. The landlord has provided copies of reports from its contractors who assessed the repair and, whilst there were a number of remedial works recommended, the contractors concluded that the door was safe.
  3. Whilst the resident clearly disputes this position, no evidence has been provided to support his submissions or to undermine the contractors’ findings. In the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the professional opinions of its suitably qualified contractors, and to respond to the complaint on the basis of the information it had received from them.
  4. It is not for the Ombudsman to assess the standard of the repairs which were carried out or to determine precisely what level of works should be completed to comply with the lease. Instead, it is the role of this Service to consider the landlord’s actions alongside relevant agreements, policies and procedures, and decide whether its consideration of, and response to, the complaint was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
  5. The landlord has said that its policy is to carry out a repair if possible, rather than a replacement. Whilst its repairs policy does not specifically set out this approach, its language does place more emphasis on carrying out repairs over replacements. Further, this is an approach which is adopted by the majority of social landlords, in the interests of making the most effective use of their limited resources. It is simply not possible for landlords to meet the demands of all residents and so it is necessary to prioritise some types of repair over others. In the absence of any evidence to dispute the contractors’ conclusions that a repair was sufficient to make the bike shed secure, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has acted reasonably in completing a repair instead of a replacement.
  6. In respect of the cosmetic repairs to the bike shed door, the landlord has said that this is not something that it would focus on unless it was something significant and out in view. The repairs policy and lease are silent on the matter of repairs to cosmetic damage, so there was no express obligation on it to take action on this issue. As the landlord’s obligations do extend to ‘redecoration’, the bike shed should be included in a regular asset review to ensure this provision is met over time, but this does not require the landlord to carry out cosmetic works on request.
  7. As explained above, it is necessary for the landlord to carefully consider the application of its resources (partly to ensure that the costs passed on to leaseholders through their service charge are not excessive) and this Service is satisfied that it has done so in this case. In the absence of any evidence that the cosmetic issues with the bike shed affected its safety or security, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord has met its repairing obligations in respect of the bike shed (see paragraph 16 above) and no further work is required.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord has shown that its decision not to replace the frame of the bike shed with a metal one was based on the contractor’s report which concluded that, despite some additional remedial work, the repairs had made the bike shed secure. While the landlord’s repairs policy does not specifically state that it will carry out a repair over a replacement, the policy wording places greater emphasis on repairs and, in the Ombudsman’s experience, this is the approach taken by all landlords to make the most effective use of their limited resources.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy makes no provision for cosmetic repairs. Redecoration is part of the landlord’s responsibilities under the lease and therefore should reasonably be considered as part of any regular review/redecoration programme, but does not require specific action outside of that. 

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should consider amending its repairs policy at the next available opportunity to further clarify that it will complete a repair over a replacement where necessary.