Apna Ghar Housing Association Limited (202005601)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005601

Apna Ghar Housing Association Limited

17 May 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

The complaint concerns:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a damaged door in 2019.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a damaged door in September 2020.
3. The landlord’s complaints handling.
4. The landlord’s decision to recharge the resident for the damaged door.
5. The resident’s concerns about the door following the end of the landlord’s complaints investigation.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a damaged door in 2019

Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that “were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising”.
Throughout her complaint the resident has referred to an incident that occurred in October 2019, in which she says her door handle and joining wall were damaged. She has complained that the landlord did not “uphold its duty of care” as it failed to repair the damage. However, no evidence has been provided of the resident raising a formal complaint concerning this issue until September 2020. Because of that, in line with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, this investigation will focus on the events leading up to the September 2020 complaint. References to earlier periods are for context only.

The resident’s concerns about the door following the end of the landlord’s complaints investigation

Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.
The resident, in her complaint to the Ombudsman, has raised some issues which arose after the landlord completed its investigations in October 2020. In line with paragraph 30(a), these issues will not be considered in this investigation. The resident should raise them with the landlord first, and then, once the landlord has fully investigated them, she can bring them to this Service if necessary.

The landlord’s decision to recharge the resident for the damaged door.

Paragraph 39 (h) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings”.
The landlord is actively proceeding with a claim to the County Court to recover the repair costs incurred from the damaged door. It has explained this is because the resident has “refused to either fully admit/disclose how the damage was done to her front door or to pay the amount due”. Because of this, and in accordance with paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme, this investigation will not consider the landlord’s decision to recharge the resident, how the damage was caused, or seek in any way to consider or determine responsibility for the damage.
Any reference to the above in this report is for context and background purposes only.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The property is a flat, within a block.
On the evening of 2 September 2020, the fire brigade forced entry, at the resident’s request, into her flat. The flat’s front door was badly damaged as a result, and could not be locked. The landlord later explained in its complaint responses that it believed the resident had locked her keys in the flat. The resident disputed that account of events, and said that the door was faulty.
On the same evening, 2 September 2020, the landlord’s out of hours contractor attended the property at around 10pm. Due to the time in the evening, the contractor was unable to purchase the relevant materials or locks to repair the door. However, the resident was able to secure the door from the inside with the internal door chain.
According to the landlord’s records, the resident reported the incident at 11am on 3 September 2020. Later that day the landlord discussed the incident with the resident and the contractor.
On 4 September 2020 the landlord obtained a report from the fire brigade about its actions on 2 September.
The landlord’s later complaint response explains that the resident reported on 4 September 2020 (a Friday) that the contractor who had attended on 2 September had not fully secured the door. A contractor attended the same day with the intention to secure the door with a padlock and internal “bolts”. Only the padlock was fitted. This meant that the front door to the flat could be locked and secured from the outside (using the padlock), but could only be secured from the inside with the door chain. The contractor then returned on 7 September to fit the internal bolts that he did not have available on 4 September.
On 8 or 9 September 2020 (the exact date is unclear), the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. She referred to a range of issues, many of which are not part of this investigation. She said that the landlord had breached its policy “through negligence” as her door was not secured until 7 September. She said that although the landlord had organised for bolts and a padlock to be fitted, this was insufficient as “only the padlock was fitted outside” meaning “when inside [her] property [she could] not lock the front door”. She said that the landlord had failed her by leaving her “at risk”. She asked the landlord to advise her when her door would be repaired, and said it had failed to carry out the repair within a set time limit. She asked for compensation.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 24 September 2020. Amongst other things, it explained that its contractor did not have a padlock available on 2 September. It also explained that the padlock was then fitted on 4 September, and that neither its contractor nor the resident had reported that the internal bolts had not been fitted on 4 September. It also noted that the resident had not reported the issue over the weekend of 5 and 6 September either. The landlord concluded that:

“The incident and the damage to your door arose due to your actions, and your subsequent refusal to complete the incident form or to meet with us to help us understand why the door was damaged. Therefore, I cannot agree with you that you are entitled to any compensation as you have requested in your complaint.”

The landlord concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident escalated her complaint on 5 October 2020. She said that the contractor had not completed the repair on 4 September as he had not fixed the bolts until 7 September. She pointed out that the landlord’s procedures called for external doors and windows to be repaired within 24 hours, and for issues of responsibility and recharge of costs to be decided after the repairs. She said that she was not responsible for informing the landlord about the incomplete repair, which she said was the contractor’s responsibility. The resident said that the landlord had “failed to move forward with the situation and facilitate a solution”.
A contractor attended the resident’s property on 10 October 2020. The contractor reported to the landlord that the resident opened the door from the inside and concluded that the “door opened and closed smoothly”.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 21 October 2020. It acknowledged that its contractor had not initially fitted a padlock on the resident’s door on 2 September 2020, but said that there was an internal door chain to secure the resident’s door, and a “communal front door” to access the building. It noted that it had been made aware on 7 September that the internal bolts had not been installed as intended on 4 September, but said that the resident had “the opportunity to call the Out of Hours Team on Friday evening, Saturday 5th and Sunday 6th September 2020, however, you did not do so, nor have you stated why you did not follow this up over the whole weekend, especially as you considered this to be a security issue.” The landlord explained that the resident:

“reported to us on 4th September that the contractor we sent to secure your door on 2nd September 2020 did not fully secure your door. We raised this with the contractor and the contractor returned to your property and added a padlock to your door on the same day. While this was adequate and in line with our process, we agreed to instruct the contractor to also add a further 2 bolts to further secure the door.”

The landlord concluded by explaining a range of reasons why it would not compensate the resident, which included her not informing it until 7 September 2020 that the internal bolts had not been fitted, and her not accepting its view that she had caused the damage. It said it believed it had now responded to the complaint, and explained how the resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a damaged door in September 2020.

The landlord’s repairs policy says that in circumstances of “out of hours emergency work”, “only genuine emergency work will be ordered to make safe”, the landlord will then make arrangements the following day for “any follow up work”. The policy also sets out that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and urgent repairs within seven working days. Its website defines an emergency repair as one which “affects your safety and security, or the safety and security of the property or your possessions”. This may include “unsafe external doors”.
The policy states that the landlord will “will recharge tenants for the costs of works resulting from neglect, deliberate or accidental damage (including damage by members of their household or visitors)”.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord does not “have to repair anything that does not belong to us or that your or your family or your visitors have damaged.” However, that statement is at odds with the landlord’s repairs policy, and also with conventional practice for recharging costs. Furthermore, it cannot be applicable in emergency situations where the obvious priority is to address and resolve the underlying issue, before identifying blame and responsibility.
The insecure front door was clearly an emergency, as defined in the landlord’s repairs policy.
It would be difficult to reasonably argue that a door chain provides for a properly secure door.
Some of the policies referred to above make a distinction between external and internal doors. In this case, the door in question was the external door to the resident’s flat.
When the resident reported the incident on 2 September 2020, an “out of hours” contractor attended the property within 24 hours. In the circumstances of the time of evening, and the scale of the damage to the door, it is perhaps understandable that it could not be properly secured that night. However, appropriate practice, and the landlord’s repairs policy in emergency situations, is for attendance the following day to complete the necessary follow up work, after obtaining the necessary equipment. This did not happen, and given that the door could not be properly secured at all, was a major failing.
The landlord did not make arrangements to secure the door until after the resident raised the matter again with it on 4 September 2020. The landlord should have been aware of the incomplete repairs from its contractors, and the matter should not have needed the resident raising it again. Despite the repair order being for both internal and external security for the door, only the external equipment was installed. Again, the landlord was not aware of this, because its contractors had failed to update it.
Only after the resident again informed the landlord that the work was still not complete on 7 September 2020 did the landlord’s contractors properly secure the door. This was five days after the landlord was first notified on 2 September. In the circumstances, these failings taken together show maladministration by the landlord.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord’s failure to respond appropriately to the resident’s report of the damaged door was clear and obvious, and should have been easily recognised when her complaint was investigated. However, while the complaint responses laid out the chronology of events accurately, including that the landlord’s contractor had not completed work or communicated with the landlord, it did not identify this as a failing. Instead, the landlord’s responses focussed on the resident not reporting the incomplete repair work, and the issue of responsibility for the door damage.
Landlords are responsible for the repair and maintenance of a range of property fixtures and fittings, including doors. That responsibility is not removed when there is a dispute about how or why any damage occurred. The accepted manner in which such situations are dealt with is that a resident is recharged for repair work following damage they or their families caused. This is specifically set out in the landlord’s repairs policy (and was also raised by the resident in her complaint). Accordingly, the landlord was responsible for repairing the resident’s front door, regardless of the cause of the damage. In its complaint responses the landlord explained its position that it believed the resident had damaged the door, and so was not due any resolution for its poor handling of the repair. That was not a fair or reasonable position for the landlord to take.
The landlord identified several times in its complaint responses that the resident had delayed informing it that the work to secure her front door was incomplete. It based it’s complaint decisions partly on that. However, the fact that the resident needed to inform the landlord at all is due to its own failings. The resident should not have needed to do anything more than her original out of hours call, and the call to the landlord she made the next day. The landlord’s contractors were clearly aware of the status of their work, and should have communicated this to the landlord. The contractors were acting on behalf of the landlord, and their failings were the landlord’s. The resident clearly made this point in her complaint, yet it was not considered by the landlord.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (published in July 2020) sets out that a complaint investigation “shall be conducted in an impartial manner” in order to obtain “fair and appropriate findings”. The landlord’s complaint responses cannot be said to have met this standard. It adopted an accusatory tone, and lacked impartiality. It focused on responsibility for the damage, while failing to acknowledge its own responsibilities and failings. As set out earlier, this investigation is not assessing who was at fault for the damage, but rather how the landlord handled the repair. In the circumstances of this complaint, the landlord’s actions and its complaint responses were wholly unreasonable.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in:
1. Its handling of the resident’s reports of a damaged door in September 2020.
2. Its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord delayed emergency repairs needed to properly secure the resident’s front door, inappropriately placed responsibility for the repair on the resident, and failed to investigate her complaints fairly and impartially.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to pay the resident £450. This is comprised of:
1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays securing the door.
2. £200 for its poor complaint handling.
The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made.
The landlord is also ordered to consider the failings found in this investigation regarding both its contractors’ thoroughness and communication, and its poor complaint handling. It should create an action plan setting out how it will address these failings, so as to reduce the likelihood of their reoccurrence. This action plan must be completed within six weeks of this report, and shared with the resident and this Service.

Recommendation

As noted in this investigation, the wording about the responsibility for repairs in the resident’s tenancy agreement is unclear. In an emergency, the landlord would be expected to resolve the repair issue first, before investigating to determine if recharging costs was appropriate. The landlord is recommended to consider this, and whether it should amend the wording in its future tenancy agreements if necessary.