Aspire Housing Limited (202205312)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205312

Aspire Housing Limited

4 April 2023

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:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when let to her.
   2. Handling of, and communication regarding, subsequent repairs in the property.

Background

2. The resident rents a three-bedroom semi-detached property from the landlord. Her tenancy commenced on 03 December 2021. She lives with her son, whom she states is disabled with a lowered immune system.
3. On 21 December 2021, the resident complained to the landlord that the property was substandard. She also stated that none of its workmen, including the cleaning contractor due at her property on that date, had attended. The landlord advised her, on the same day, that two of the repair jobs will be completed on the same day and it will re-arrange appointments for other repairs and the cleaning work.
4. The landlord inspected the property on 5 January 2022, during which the resident stated that several repairs and replacements were needed in the property. It agreed to some repairs/replacements but rejected others, because they were not substantiated, most were of satisfactory condition and the cleanliness of the property’s fixtures met its standards. The landlord eventually stated that it was agreed by both parties that all the repairs had been captured and that the Stage 1 complaint could be closed as a quick fix, therefore no formal response was sent to her.
5. In requesting for the escalation of the matter, the resident stated that the property was not in good condition when she moved in. She also asserted that the landlord’s contractors kept cancelling and rescheduling appointments. Following another visit, on 15 March 2022, the landlord agreed to undertake more repairs/replacements. However, it later stated that some of these works were not actually elemental failures and most items were fit for purpose. It provided a stage 2 decision on 22 March 2022 in which it detailed agreed repairs from the visit.
6. The resident remained dissatisfied and referred the case to the Ombudsman. She stated that the house was dirty when she moved in, and the landlord’s cleaning contractor had to clean parts of it again. She also stated that there had been poor contact and delays from the landlord in respect of the several repairs/replacement works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

7. In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident has stated that the landlord told her to strip the walls and its plasterer would come round and replaster; the date given was months away. She has now been left with holes in the walls, a lot of old loose plaster and dust not good for her son’s health. It is unknown when this agreement was made between both parties and the landlord has not discussed it in its final response. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot consider this aspect of the complaint.
8. Similarly, the resident sent an email to this Service, about the landlord’s contractors not turning up on 13 September 2022 to carry out fence repair works as agreed. This aspect of the complaint has not been through the landlord’s complaint procedure and therefore the Ombudsman cannot consider it.
9. Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The resident may wish to raise a complaint on these issues with the landlord in the first instance if she has not already done so
10. The resident has also stated that her mental health is suffering because the property looks horrible. This matter cannot be investigated by the Ombudsman as it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and the alleged health issues. Therefore, should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.

Condition of the property when let to resident

11. The landlord’s Empty House policy states that work to bring the property to its lettable standard work will generally be undertaken whilst the property is empty, with works prioritised to minimise the length of time properties are vacant. Planned improvements may not always be undertaken prior to the occupancy. A timescale will be agreed with the incoming customer for the completion of such works.
12. The landlord has provided void inspection and work instructions documents relating to the property as well as a list of repairs it carried out during the void period.
13. It has also provided a copy of its Home Standard which sets out the level of repairs and cleanliness that a resident can expect when moving into its properties. It has a checklist of actions the landlord must carry out. In this case, all actions were said to have been carried out, as each action has been ticked ‘yes’. It is unclear which of the parties ticked the checklist.
14. The landlord stated that during its inspection of the property on 15 March 2022, the resident stated that she was not happy about the condition of the property and had expected everything to have been replaced, like the kitchen had. She was not happy that the whole house had not been renovated. It advised her that it does not fully renovate the whole property whilst it is void and if the property meets the Home Standard, then the property is re-let. The only reason the kitchen was replaced was because it did not meet the Home Standard but the rest of the fixtures and fittings met the Home Standard, thus, were not replaced.
15. There is no requirement in the landlord’s policies to refurbish/renovate the entire of the property when void or that to replace all the fixtures irrespective of their condition. However, the Ombudsman has considered the resident’s concerns alongside the landlord’s Home Standards and finds that the landlord did not fully comply with its own policy as there were some outstanding repairs and cleaning which should have been carried out, prior to the resident moving in.
16. For instance, its Home Standard states that:
    1. The plumbing and water system will be tested to ensure it is in working order and free of leaks.
    2. Its skirting boards will be free from tripping hazards.
    3. It will clean all radiators.

17. Contrary to the above requirements, the evidence from the property’s void documents suggest that the plumbing test was carried out. However, a few weeks after moving in, a repair for a leak in the bath or sink was raised which was completed on 5 January 2021. A job was raised after the resident moved in to remove loose wiring clips on the skirting boards and these were removed on 17 January 2022. Furthermore the cleaning for behind the radiators was not undertaken until 5 January 2022.

18. Overall, the Ombudsman, considers that there were shortcomings in the landlord’s adherence to its lettable standards, which would have had some impact on the resident and her family. However, the evidence also indicates that it agreed to replace some fixtures, some of which were still in good condition for the resident. This shows that the landlord was willing to resolve the issues which were identified.

Handling of subsequent repairs

19. The landlord’s repairs policy timeframes for carrying out routine repairs is 28 working days, and 90 working days for major repairs.

20. The resident stated in her complaint that there had been delays and cancellations to subsequent repairs. This report will focus on repairs mentioned in the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman which are:
    1. Glossing: The resident stated that the glossing in the property was ruined by the plasterers. The landlord stated in its response that the resident was not happy with the painting around the skirting board as new gloss had been painted over old gloss. It advised that she could paint the woodwork herself, and explained that the woodwork was satisfactory and would not be repainted. It did not deem glossing a repair. According to the tenancy agreement the tenant is responsible for decorating the premises internally.
    2. Banister: On 15 March 2022, the landlord during an inspection of the property, acknowledged that the banister was in poor condition and raised a repair job for it. The banister was removed on 8 June 2022 but was not renewed until 12 July 2022. It took approximately 81 working days to resolve this issue, this is outside of its repair policy for routine repairs which is 28 working days.
    3. The kitchen radiator: The landlord stated that the resident reported it was loose on 21 December 2021 and it was rehung on the same day. She reported it leaking on 15 March 2022 and it was repaired on 18 March 2022 and replaced on 29 March 2022. This was in accordance with its routine repairs requirements, which is 28 working days.
    4. The hall radiator: The landlord advised the resident on 15 March 2022, that it could not be rehung until the plastering, done on the same day, dried out. This would take about 6 weeks. On 8 June 2022, the resident reported that the plastering was dry, and it was rehung on 8 July 2022. This was done within 28 working days.
    5. Door frames: The resident stated that the door frames keep being retightened.  The landlord stated that the resident wanted them replaced because they were old-fashioned. The landlord visited the property and found the door frames to be in working condition, but agreed to have the draft excluders removed, as the resident did not like these. They were removed on 29 March 2022. The landlord is therefore considered to have taken reasonable steps to address this issue.
    6. Replacement boundary fence: The resident raised this repair on 11 January 2022, however, the landlord stated that it explained to her that this did not need to be replaced. However, it agreed to refer her request to its planned team to see if they could assist with her request under the 12-month programme. Therefore, the landlord had 12 months to complete any fence work. The landlord has stated that this was scheduled to be completed by 30 September 2022. The replacement was within the landlord’s expected time frame.
    7. Bath, sink and windowsills: The resident stated that these had cigarette burns and yellow stains with hairline crack lines in them. The sink piping had yellow stains. The landlord visited the property twice on 5 January 2022 and 15 March 2022, inspected the bath and found it to be in good condition and working condition. The landlord agreed to replace the taps and re-silicone around the bath and sink. The landlord again is considered to have taken reasonable steps to address this issue.
21. Overall, the Ombudsman considers that there was service failure its handling of the subsequent repairs, but this was solely with respect to the landlord’s delay in repairing/replacing the resident’s banister.

Communication regarding subsequent repairs

22. The stage one response to the complaint was not in writing, therefore the landlord did not comply with its own complaint policy which states that a written response will be provided to the customer detailing the outcome and explaining how they can appeal against this decision if they are not satisfied. Giving, that there were many repairs being undertaken at the resident’s property, It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to put its response in writing, primarily to avoid the risk of the resident misconstruing any verbal conversations about what had been agreed.
23. On 21 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to ask about its cleaning contractor who was due to carry out a clean at her property on the same day. The landlord advised that its contractor had overrun on another job, and it will have to reschedule the job.
24. On 8 June 2022, the resident rang to advise that the old banister in the property had been removed, however, the landlord’s scheduling team did not raise a request for a new one on that date. The resident rang again on 13 June 2022 and its scheduling team, again did not raise a request. It was finally raised on 15 June 2022.
25. On 15 March 2022, the hallway radiator was removed due to the landlord’s replastering works. It has stated that it advised the resident, that it would not be refixed until after 6 weeks so the plaster could dry out. The landlord could have contacted the resident after 6 weeks to arrange refixing of the radiator, but it did not. The resident rang the landlord on 08 June 2022 to advise that plaster was dry. The landlord’s scheduling team did not raise a job, and she had to call again to chase progress. It was eventually rehung on 08 July 2022.

26. Overall, the Ombudsman considers that there was service failure relating to the landlord’s communication, which would have caused the resident, some inconvenience and stress.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
    1. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when let to her.
    2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of, and communication regarding, subsequent repairs in the property

Orders

28. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should pay the resident the total sum of £200.00 in compensation, comprising:
    1. £50 for failures identified in its communication with the resident.
    2. £150 for service failures identified in its handling of the void and subsequent repairs.

Recommendations

29. The landlord should consider actions it could take to improve its communication processes with respect to repairs requests.
30. The Landlord consider instructing its relevant teams on the importance of adhering to its policies and procedures on complaints, repairs and works scheduling.