Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited (202234494)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234494

Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited

3 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about the condition of the walls in the property upon letting and her request to be reimbursed costs incurred in remedial works.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured non-shorthold tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, which started on 21 November 2022. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident was notified of the offer of accommodation on 14 November 2022. The landlord advised that the property required extensive repairs which included the complete redecoration of all the rooms. It said these works were completed on 16 November 2022. The resident was invited to view the property afterwards on 17 November 2022.

Landlord obligations

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that the resident is wholly responsible for keeping the interior of the property, in a reasonable state of decoration, in line with their tenancy agreement. The exception is when they meet the criteria for any internal decoration assistance schemes it may have in place.
The landlord’s lettings standards policy states that:
1. It will ensure that the plastering on walls and ceilings are in a suitable condition for redecoration.
2. The resident is responsible for the redecoration of the property, and this includes minor preparation work to walls and ceilings.
The landlord’s complaints policy has 2 stages. It will aim to acknowledge complaints within 2 working days of receipt and respond to:
1. Stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
2. Stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that:
1. It will take into consideration the circumstances of each case in determining compensation to be paid.
2. It will consider reimbursement where the resident has incurred out of pocket expenses where it is at fault or for something it is responsible for.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord around 22 November 2022 and reported concerns about the condition of the walls, a window and the radiators. The landlord arranged for its void contractor to attend to the radiators, but it noted that redecoration works would be the resident’s responsibility.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 November 2022. She asked if it could arrange for works to be done to the property walls, and also part of the floorboard as they were badly damaged. She provided pictures to the landlord as evidence.
The landlord’s repairs team said in an internal email on 24 November 2022, that they would not be returning to fill any cracks since the resident had removed the wallpaper.
The following events occurred on 28 November 2022:
1. The resident raised a formal complaint. She said despite the concerns raised no one had contacted her or attended to resolve the issues.
2. The landlord noted in an internal email that:
  1. The resident said she had removed the wallpaper in the property as it was installed to hide the damage.
  2. It advised the resident that nothing could be done as the property was newly decorated, painted and deemed to have met lettable standards. It was her responsibility to replaster and decorate the walls to her own standards.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 29 November 2022. It said it would aim to respond by 13 December 2022.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 13 December 2022. It asked her to confirm a convenient time to discuss the issues raised. The resident responded on 14 December 2022, that she was available anytime on that day for a phone call.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 13 December 2022. It said:
1. It had contacted the resident and her daughter by phone and email and left a voice message, but it had not been able to speak to her.
2. The resident’s housing officer had advised her that it would be costly to change the wallpaper in the property, but she decided to change it.
3. Extensive works were carried out in the property as it was in a poor condition. The walls were stripped and made good where necessary and covered with wallpaper (except to the kitchen and bathroom) and painted with emulsion. The photographs taken after the works were completed showed that it met lettable standards.
4. The voids team returned to remove wallpaper scrapings that were stuck behind the radiators. The pictures taken on the visit showed that the wallpaper fitted in the property had been removed. They advised that they would not return to repair the damage to the walls, as they were in a good condition when the wallpaper was installed.
5. Its repairs team would return to repair the damaged floorboard recently reported. It was sorry that this was not previously addressed.
6. Her complaint had not been upheld as the landlord had not found any evidence of service failure.
On 14 December 2022 the landlord asked its contractor to visit and renew the damaged floorboard.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 December 2022 and 3 January 2023 and said that she had not been contacted.
In an internal email dated 12 January 2023, the landlord said the resident attended its offices on 10 January 2023 and requested the escalation of her complaint to stage 2. It noted that:
1. The resident did not feel the landlord had listened to her or gathered enough evidence to investigate her complaint.
2. She would like an opportunity to present photographic evidence of the condition of the walls underneath the wallpaper when she moved in. She accepted that small cracks and dents were her responsibility, but some of the cracks were very large.
3. The resident said she had incurred additional costs in putting the damage right, as she could not move into the property while waiting for the landlord to resolve it. She would like to be re-imbursed the cost of plastering works.
4. The situation had impacted her as she had moved out of her previous accommodation following the death of her husband. She had not been able to settle into the new property for over a month after receiving the keys.
5. She would like evidence of the condition of the property before and after the void works.
6. She had resolved the damaged floorboard, so no further works were needed.
The landlord noted in its internal email on 30 January 2023, that the resident was still waiting for a face-to-face meeting to be arranged.
On 2 February 2023, the landlord contacted the resident and asked for her availability for a home visit. The responded on 5 February 2023.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint in writing on 7 February 2023.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 15 February 2023. She said following their meeting, she would like to be reimbursed £3240 which was the cost incurred in plastering works.
The resident requested an update on the complaint on 22 and 24 February 2023.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 8 March 2023. It said:
1. As stated in the stage 1 response, it was unable to reimburse the money the resident had spent on plastering works. This is because she took the decision to remove the wallpaper and arrange plastering and redecoration works without giving it an opportunity to investigate the matter.
2. It had reviewed the photographs she provided of the condition of the walls after she had removed the wallpaper and those taken after the property was ready to let.
3. Most of the photographs showed hairline cracks and some minor undulation which had been satisfactorily addressed by the wallpaper decorations previously undertaken by the voids team.
4. While a few of the photographs showed some larger cracks, she did not give the landlord an opportunity to inspect and remedy these cracks. Given that removing wallpaper can cause damage to recently decorated walls or recent repairs, it had decided not to reimburse her plastering costs.
5. It was sorry for the delay in responding to the resident’s request for a meeting. It met with her on 8 February 2023 and provided copies of pictures taken of the property before and after void works.
6. Following its investigation it had partially upheld the complaint, as the resident had experienced inconvenience in resolving several issues in the property.
7. It would like to offer her £250 in recognition of the inconvenience.

Events following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process

The landlord’s (voids team) email to its members of staff dated 29 February 2024 noted that:
1. If the contractors had noted that the walls needed additional works they would have requested for it to be done during void works.
2. It was satisfied that the damage to the walls was caused when the resident removed the wallpaper.
3. It would be the responsibility of the resident to remedy any damage caused, as it believed a steam stripper was used from the pictures taken on their visit.
Following our request for evidence, the landlord reviewed its handling of the case in March 2024. A summary of its findings is provided below:
1. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on time, but it failed to address the delay in the stage 2 response. It would offer the resident £150 for the inconvenience.
2. It provided inaccurate information in the stage 2 response, as it did not provide the resident pictures taken before and after void works.
3. The landlord had reviewed photographs taken before and after void works and it was satisfied that the property met the decent homes and lettable standard.
4. Following the inspection by its void contractor, it was clear that the visual condition of the property had been significantly altered after the wallpaper was stripped by the resident.
5. According to its repairs policy it was responsible for plastering works. It failed to follow its repairs policy, as it did not consider carrying out the works and recharging the resident.
6. While the resident was seeking reimbursement, she had not provided quotes, invoices, receipts, or details of the rooms that were replastered.
7. The resident failed to obtain written consent or notify the landlord in writing before carrying out significant plastering works in compliance with the tenancy agreement.
8. It would like to offer £300 for incorrectly advising the resident that it was not responsible for replastering works and for failing to advise her that any plastering works could be rechargeable.
9. Although it failed to follow its responsive repairs and recharge to residents policies, it is likely that the impact on the resident would have resulted in her having to pay for any replastering.
10. It was not possible to determine the condition of the walls prior to decoration during the void period. It had learnt from this and would provide training and ensure it took photographs of the condition of the walls prior to redecoration as part of the void process.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report about the condition of the walls in the property upon letting, and her request to be reimbursed costs incurred in remedial works.

According to the landlord’s letting standards document the walls and plaster in the property will be in a good condition for redecoration for the resident. The document further states that the resident will be responsible for the redecoration including minor preparation to the walls and ceilings in the property. The Ombudsman notes from the evidence seen that the resident informed the landlord that she wished to change the wallpaper in the property at sign up. We have seen that the landlord responded that it would not be responsible for these works as it had recently decorated the property. The landlord’s response at this stage was appropriate and in line with its letting standards policy.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will monitor the levels of satisfaction and take action to improve service delivery. When the resident reported concerns about the condition of the walls on 22 November 2022, after she had removed the wallpaper, the landlord said in its internal emails on 24 November 2022 that it would not return to carry out any further repairs. It said the property was in a good condition at the time it was let and the resident would be responsible for putting the damage right. While the schedule of void works stated that plastering works would be required, the landlord should have assessed the damage reported by the resident to satisfy itself that the repairs required were within her remit to resolve. Also, it did not comply with its repairs policy as it missed an opportunity determine if there was an issue with the quality of works and if this needed to be fed back to its contractors.
The resident questioned the landlord’s investigation and the evidence it relied upon to reach this conclusion, in her contact with the landlord on 10 January 2023. She informed the landlord that it was its responsibility to repair the large cracks in the wall and that it was covered with wallpaper to hide the damage. She asked for photographic evidence of the condition of the walls before and after void works, and for a meeting to present and go over it. The landlord did not take the resident’s concerns seriously, as it delayed its response to her request. She asked for a meeting on 10 January 2023, but the landlord did not act on this until 2 February 2023. This would have caused the resident some frustration.
The resident informed the landlord on 10 January 2023 that she had incurred out of pocket expenses, as she had carried out the plastering works to the walls. We have seen from the evidence that the landlord advised the resident on 28 November 2022, and on 13 December 2022 that it would not return to plaster the walls. It is, therefore, unclear why it said in its stage 2 response that the resident did not give it a chance to investigate her concerns. This is not a clear representation of the events that occurred, and this would have caused some confusion for the resident and a loss of trust in the landlord.
The resident informed the landlord on 10 January 2023, that she did not feel listened to, and that the landlord had not gathered enough evidence to investigate her complaint. The landlord appeared to have learned from its errors, as it acknowledged some failures on its part in the stage 2 response sent on 8 March 2023. It offered the resident £250 as compensation for the inconvenience caused. The landlord also admitted that the resident had experienced some difficulty in getting some issues resolved in the property although this was not clearly explained. While the landlord acknowledged that, on reviewing the photographs, there were some minor and larger cracks it said these were inadvertently caused by the resident.
In its internal communications on 29 February 2024, almost 12 months after the internal complaint process (ICP) had been exhausted, the landlord said its contractors would have requested additional works if these were needed during decorating. The landlord’s statement indicates it was not certain about the condition of the walls as it appeared to rely on its contractors to feedback if further works were required during decoration.
The Ombudsman notes from the landlord’s review of the case in March 2024 (12 months after the stage 2 response), that it solely put the blame for the condition of the walls on the resident, and that it should have done the works itself and recharged her. This is concerning. While the landlord asserted that it was entirely the resident’s fault, it failed to consider that her concerns may have been valid and that it lost the opportunity to conduct a thorough investigation or learn from this.
The landlord contradicted itself when it admitted further that it was unable to determine the condition of the walls prior to decoration during the void period. It said it had learned from this and will ensure photographs of the condition of walls are taken prior to redecoration as part of the void process. It also acknowledged that its response to the resident on 28 November 2022, was incorrect as it was the landlord’s responsibility to carry out plastering works. The landlord said it would offer the resident an additional £300 for the failures identified. The Ombudsman notes the increased offer of compensation, but this was only offered after this Service’s involvement in the case.
Overall, it is clear from the evidence seen that the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about the damaged walls, did not comply with its internal policies. The landlord had ample opportunity to investigate the resident’s concerns but it dismissed her reports, advising her that it was her responsibility to replaster the walls. The resident said she had incurred additional costs in putting the damage right as the landlord failed to investigate her reports. The landlord failed to conduct a thorough investigation to ascertain what areas of the property were replastered and if it needed to discuss this with its contractors.
The landlord should have explored the resident’s request for compensation in line with its compensation policy. It insisted throughout the life of the case that the walls were in a good condition prior to decoration, but it only acknowledged 12 months after ICP that it did not have sufficient proof to ascertain this. Due to the above, there is evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about the condition of the walls in the property upon letting, and her request to be reimbursed costs incurred in remedial works.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint was slightly delayed by 1 day. The resident complained on 28 November 2022, but the response was sent on 13 December 2022. While there is no evidence of a significant inconvenience to the resident, the landlord should have acknowledged the delay and apologise to her as the response was not sent within 10 working days. The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 10 January 2023, but the response was not sent until 8 March 2023 (over 40 working days). This would have caused the resident some frustration and inconvenience.
The landlord did not acknowledge the delay until over 12 months after the ICP, which was after the resident had referred the case to the Ombudsman. The landlord then took the decision to review the case and said it would offer the resident £150 as compensation. The landlord should have offered this compensation at the appropriate stage of the complaints process. Its late offer does not comply with this Service’s complaint handling code and with its commitment to conduct a timely investigation of a resident’s complaint as stated in its complaint policy. The landlord also acknowledged that the stage 2 response incorrectly stated that the resident was provided photographs taken before and after the voids process. While the Ombudsman notes that the landlord sought to put things right at this stage, this was far late in the process to prevent the distress and frustration to the resident.
The landlord’s complaints policy also states that it will carry out an objective and fair investigation. It said conclusions would be reached in the facts established and not personal opinions. Although the landlord acknowledged, in the stage 2 response, that there were some large cracks on the walls, it concluded that the resident had inadvertently caused the damage while removing the wallpaper. The landlord’s stage 1 response stated that the property was in a poor condition and that it needed extensive repairs prior to void works. It said the walls were made good where necessary, but the landlord did not elaborate on the specific condition of the walls and the actual works carried out. Its conclusion that the resident had therefore caused the large cracks was not clearly evidenced.
Based on the landlord’s late admission that it did not have photographs of the condition of the walls before they were redecorated, indications are that its conclusion was not based on facts. This would have caused the resident further inconvenience. Also, the stage 2 response incorrectly stated that the resident failed to allow the landlord time to investigate her report and put things right. It is clear from the evidence that the landlord stated on 24 November 2022, 28 November 2022 and 13 December 2022 that it would not be carrying out the repairs to the walls. Based on the above, there is evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about the condition of the walls in the property upon letting, and her request to be reimbursed costs incurred in remedial works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not take the resident’s reports about the condition of the walls in the property seriously. It dismissed her concerns and decided that the damage was caused by the resident without clear evidence of how it reached this conclusion. Although it admitted that the resident had been inconvenienced, it did not acknowledge the overall impact of its failures on the resident who said she had incurred out of pocket expenses.
The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 response to the resident’s complaints were delayed. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay or offer compensation to the resident at the end of the ICP or in a timely manner in compliance with its complaints policy. It acknowledged 12 months after the complaints process had been exhausted, that the response contained factually incorrect information and that the response was delayed.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the amount of £1600 broken down as:
  1. £700 already offered to the resident if it has not yet been paid.
  2. £500 for the distress and frustration to the resident for the handling of her reports about the condition of the property.
  3. £400 for the time and trouble, frustration and inconvenience to the resident for the complaint handling.
3. The landlord should share a copy of this report with its member of staff who handle complaints. It should identify any training needs for the staff, which should include the importance of conducting evidence-based investigations.

Recommendations

The landlord should reconsider the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the plastering works carried out in the property. It should request evidence it said the resident had not provided as stated in its review carried out in March 2024. A copy of the response should be provided to this Service.