Arcon Housing Association Limited (202121447)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121447

Arcon Housing Association Limited

17 October 2022

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 request for shower repairs.

Background

2. The resident is a shared owner of the property. The landlord is the freeholder.
3. The resident has stated that on 18 November 2021, she contacted the landlord about her broken shower, as she wanted to enquire whose responsibility it was to undertake the repairs. The landlord advised her that as a shared owner, the repairs were her obligation. The resident complained to the landlord that her neighbour “had a great deal of work done within their property recently for free by the landlord. They have exactly the same lease as myself.” In a follow up email, the resident said the landlord’s officers had told her the work at the neighbours property had been done by mistake.
4. The resident complained that she felt the landlord was discriminating against her, by responding differently to her repairs in comparison to her neighbours. She asked the landlord to investigate the issue, to ascertain who was responsible for repairing her shower.
5. In its complaint response on 30 November 2021, the landlord explained that, according to the resident’s lease, it was her responsibility to repair the shower. While it acknowledged that the resident felt discriminated against, it explained that this was not the case, as the neighbours works were of a different nature, and had been covered by its building insurance policy, whereas her repairs had not.
6. The resident escalated her complaint on 2 December 2021. She accepted that repairing the shower was her responsibility, but remained unconvinced that she was liable for the full extent of the works. She also stated that she had not been given a definitive reason for why the landlord had approached repairs to the two properties differently. She remained dissatisfied that the landlord had neglected to address why it had said that the neighbours property was repaired by mistake.
7. In its response, the landlord explained that it had been incorrect to state that the neighbours repairs had been undertaken by mistake. It apologised for any confusion this caused. It reiterated the resident’s repair obligations and explained that it had concluded that it had applied the lease correctly, without discrimination toward the resident.
8. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has explained that she would like the landlord to investigate and repair her shower. She also would like an explanation as to why the landlord’s approach differed in the repairs to her property in comparison to her neighbours, and an apology from the landlord for its customer service.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

9. The resident has complained to this Service of additional issues, such as comments made by the landlord during discussions about the resident’s long-term living arrangements and a lack of response regarding her bathroom adaptions. Although she has reported these issues to the landlord, they have not yet been considered through its complaint procedure. Under section 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints that have not been brought to the attention of a member as a formal complaint and subsequently have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Should the resident raise these matters with her landlord and progress through the landlord’s formal complaint procedure, this Service may then be able to consider her concerns.
10. The resident has stated that she considers that the issue of the shower repair has exacerbated her medical conditions. It is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s medical conditions. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action, or lack thereof by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for shower repairs

11. The resident’s lease states that the resident must “at all times during the term keep the premises …substantially repaired, maintained and decorated”. The landlord’s guidance for leaseholders and shared owners’ states that the resident is responsible for all internal parts of her home, including services used solely by the resident. The landlord is responsible for the external walls and structure, as well as plumbing and drainage service for common areas only. It also states that the landlord’s building insurance does not cover day-to-day repairs.
12. In line with the lease and the landlord’s guidance, the resident is responsible for all internal works and thus the full repairs to her shower. The landlord’s response to the resident’s query on who was responsible for the repairs was appropriate and accurate, as it is not obligated to undertake these works. If the landlord had undertaken repairs to the neighbours home in error, this still would not have entitled the resident to the same repairs to her home, as they fall outside the scope of the landlord’s obligations. As a result, there was no service failure in how the landlord responded to the resident’s repair reports.
13. Although the landlord was consistent in explaining who was responsible for the resident’s shower repair, it acknowledged that it mistakenly informed the resident that her neighbours repairs were completed in error. The error clearly fostered a sense of injustice for the resident. However, the information did not affect the substantive issue, as again, the resident would not be entitled to additional repairs as a result of an error the landlord had made elsewhere.
14. The landlord was also quick to provide the correct information to the resident. Having made the incorrect statement on 18 November 2021, it followed up the next day with a full explanation as to why the neighbours repairs differed from the residents. It also sent the resident information on the building insurance stipulations, to highlight which repairs were covered. In short, the landlord acted reasonably, as it tried to rectify its initial inaccurate response, and provided the correct information to the resident.
15. The landlord acted appropriately in its complaint response, as it clearly detailed the resident’s repair obligations, as set out in her lease. The resident expressed dissatisfaction at some of the landlord’s choice of words when discussing her repair responsibilities. However, the wording in question was quoted from the lease, and it was reasonable for the landlord to do so as a way of highlighting the resident’s repair obligations, as this was the matter in dispute. Additionally, the landlord used its complaint response to assure the resident that it had not acted in a discriminatory way in how it had handled her repairs request, and it clearly explained the basis on which it had taken the actions it did. Nothing in the evidence seen in this investigation indicates potential discrimination in the landlord’s actions. It also acknowledged and apologised for its initial error regarding the neighbours repairs, which adequately addressed this mistake. As a result, the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint was reasonable in the circumstances.
16. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident explained that she had not been able to find clear guidance about repair responsibilities for leaseholders and landlords/freeholder. That information forms part of the terms of the resident’s lease, and any queries about it can often be resolved by approaching organisations such as Shelter, or the Leasehold Advisory Service. Details for both organisations can be found online.

Determination (decision)

17. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress prior to investigation which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.