Basildon Borough Council (202320344)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320344

Basildon Borough Council

9 May 2025

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 requests for repairs to his front door and reimbursement for a replacement door.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident had been a secure tenant of the property, a 1-bedroom, 6th floor flat, since 2010. The landlord is a council.
4. On 11 February 2023 the resident reported his front door was damaged and he could not lock it. The landlord carried out emergency repairs that day to make the door safe. Records from 13 February 2023 note the damage was caused by forced entry by the police. Although the landlord arranged for contractors to replace the door that day, the work did not go ahead. A further appointment was booked for 14 April 2023.
5. The resident emailed the landlord on 18 February 2023 saying he intended to replace the door himself. The landlord did not reply. The planned replacement of 14 April 2023 did not go ahead, as only one contractor attended.
6. The resident complained about the delay in completing the works on 4 May 2023. Shortly after, he said he had replaced the door and asked for the cost to be reimbursed by the landlord. In its stage 1 response of 18 May 2023 the landlord apologised for the delay but said it would not reimburse the resident’s costs. Instead, it said its initial repair of the door was rechargeable and it would need to inspect the new door to see if it complied with building regulations.
7. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 25 May 2023 but the landlord declined as the complaint was about policy. The resident reiterated his complaints on 30 October 2023 and the landlord issued a stage 2 response on 10 November 2023. Its decision did not change.
8. The landlord inspected the door and decided it did not comply with building regulations. It was later replaced as part of planned refurbishment works. The resident started a new tenancy at a different property (still with the landlord) on 20 May 2024. In his referral to us he said he wanted the cost of the replacement door to be deducted from his rent account.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s requests for repairs to his front door and reimbursement for a replacement door

9. The landlord’s Tenancy Handbook says the landlord is responsible for maintaining all external doors. It groups repairs as either:
   1. Priority 1 (emergency) such as gaining entry to a property. The landlord aims to attend these within 2 hours to make the property safe.
   2. Priority 2 for all other repairs. The landlord aims to complete these within 28 days.
10. When the landlord attended on 11 February 2023, it boarded the door and provided bolts and a padlock. This was appropriate and in line with its priority 1 repair policy. The landlord’s rechargeable repairs policy says a resident can be charged for the cost of a repair when damage is caused by the resident’s wilful neglect, misuse, or abuse. As the door was damaged by the police forcing entry due to the resident failing to allow access, it may have been appropriate to consider recharging the associated costs.
11. The policy says, due to the limited timescales involved, rechargeable emergency repairs will be completed by the landlord and recharged to the resident. Residents should be notified of the cost of such repairs as soon as possible. There is no evidence that the landlord decided to recharge the resident for this repair at that time or invoiced him for the costs shortly after. In light of the fact the landlord subsequently sought to recharge the costs 3 months later, this was a failure in service.
12. The landlord then arranged a priority 2 repair to replace the door and a contractor attended on 13 February 2023. However, they were unable to complete the work as it was a 2-person job (the new door needed adjusting and the property was on the 6th floor). The replacement was re-booked for 14 April 2023, 62 days after it was first reported. This was a failing as the work should have been rebooked within the 28-day target timeframe for priority 2 repairs, and therefore completed by 11 March 2023.
13. The resident was notified of the new date and emailed both the contractor and the landlord on 18 February 2023 to say he intended to replace the door himself in the next few days. He said this was because it was not treated as an emergency or being repaired within 14 days and the property was not fit to live in. He said he had been quoted £800 plus VAT to replace the door.
14. There is no evidence the landlord acted on this email. It should have:
    1. Considered whether the repair could be brought forward or prioritised.
    2. Addressed the resident’s concerns that the property was not safe or secure.
    3. Confirmed the time limit for completing the replacement was 28 days (and not 14 days as suggested by the resident).
    4. Explained whether his intention to replace the door was acceptable. This is in line with the Tenancy Handbook which says any modifications or alterations a resident wishes to make must be agreed in writing in advance of any works being carried out.
15. We do not consider the landlord’s temporary repair would have posed a risk of injury to the resident, or affected his health. However, we understand why he was unhappy living with the temporary measure for longer than necessary. The landlord’s failure to respond to this email for a prolonged period was a missed opportunity and a failure in service.
16. The scheduled 14 April 2023 replacement also could not go ahead as only one contractor attended. This is disappointing given that the landlord knew 2 operatives were required, and it indicates a lack of oversight and planning in its repairs process. The landlord did not then re-arrange the work at that time, which was unreasonable given it was now significantly overdue and the delays were due to its own errors.
17. The resident formally complained on 4 May 2023 and contacted the contractor on 11 May 2023, seeking a response to his February 2023 email. In the contractor’s response the following day, it apologised and said the door would be replaced on 16 June 2023. The resident responded that he had already had the door replaced and asked for reimbursement through the landlord’s ‘Right to Repair’ scheme. The contractor referred this to the landlord the same day.
18. The contractor externally inspected the door on 16 May 2023 and took photographs. The resident did not allow access to the property so the contractor was unable to inspect the door from the inside. We do not know whether the resident was notified of this inspection in advance, but the tenancy agreement says the landlord is able to enter a property at all reasonable times to inspect the condition of it or carry out work to put things right. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange the inspection and the resident should have allowed access.
19. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said the replacement did not qualify under the ‘Right to Repair’ scheme and was a rechargeable repair. This was because the damage was caused by the resident not allowing the police access. It said an engineer would inspect the door on 16 June 2023 to see if it met building regulations.
20. The landlord’s decision that the door replacement did not qualify under the Right to Repair scheme was appropriate. The policy applies when repairs have not been completed within published timescales and allows residents to ask for a second contractor to carry out repair work. If the work still cannot be completed in time, residents may be entitled to compensation. However, qualifying repairs are defined as mostly minor, costing up to £250. The door replacement was not a minor repair and the resident said it cost him £800 plus VAT (no supporting evidence provided). Further, there is no evidence the resident asked for a second contractor to complete the work. While the resident did tell the landlord he intended to replace the door himself, this is not considered sufficient to bring the works within the provisions of the Right to Repair scheme.
21. With regard to the recharge, the landlord was aware of the cause of the damage on 13 February 2023, but did not tell the resident he was responsible for the cost of the repairs until more than 3 months later, after he had made a formal complaint. In these circumstances, we find that it was unreasonable for the landlord to recharge the cost of repairs at this late stage. The landlord should also have told the resident how much it was going to charge to replace the door and given him the option to arrange this himself (subject to receiving prior approval and meeting an appropriate standard), in accordance with its rechargeable repairs policy.
22. The landlord was again unable to complete a full inspection of the door on 16 June 2023. Although contractors attended, there is no record of why they were unable to inspect the property and no further inspections were arranged at that time. Whilst the resident may have believed the door was acceptable, the landlord should have inspected it anyway. This is because it was responsible for making sure it was a self-closing fire door and complied with the appropriate fire regulations.
23. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it would need to assess whether the door met building regulations and invited the resident to provide his availability. The landlord failed to apologise for the service failings identified in this report or consider whether compensation was appropriate. Its compensation policy allows for awards of up to £500 when there has been a failure in service standards. As the landlord had not completed the door works within its published time limit, it should have considered awarding compensation.
24. The resident emailed the landlord on 22 November 2023 and said the cost of repairs he carried out in February 2023 was £1,000 plus VAT. It is unclear whether this figure included the cost of another unrelated repair, as it was higher than the initial sum given by the resident. He asked the landlord to reconsider its decision to recharge him for the repair. He did not provide his availability to facilitate the inspection as requested.
25. Records show the landlord spoke with the resident on 1 December 2023, when he agreed to allow access to inspect the front door on condition the landlord provided additional information about the inspection. The landlord provided this information on 4 December 2023 and confirmed the Inspector would attend on 8 December 2023. The resident replied the next day saying he was unavailable, as he had to give his employer at least 28 days notice for time off. He said he would provide his availability by the end of the week but did not do so. Again, it was a condition of his tenancy agreement that he allowed the landlord access to the property and there is no requirement for it to give him 28 days notice.
26. The landlord also asked for further information about the replacement door, including proof of purchase. The resident replied on 13 December 2023 to say his friend had fitted the door and it did not conform with fire regulations. There is no evidence he provided proof of purchase as requested.
27. As the resident did not provide any availability for the landlord to inspect the door, the landlord hand delivered a letter on 8 January 2024. This explained why it needed to attend and that the resident was in breach of his tenancy agreement as he had not facilitated an inspection. The landlord reminded him of his responsibilities and said another inspection had been arranged for 6 February 2024.
28. Again, the landlord was unable to gain access to the property on that date. An external inspection was completed and noted multiple issues and potential fire safety risks. On that basis, the landlord decided the door needed to be replaced again (subsequently completed as part of a refurbishment programme).
29. While this was a reasonable, and sensible, conclusion to reach, this could have been established following the external inspection in May 2023. This means the resident was unnecessarily without a fire compliant door for 10 months. While the resident must accept some responsibility for installing this new (potentially unsafe) door himself, the landlord is ultimately responsible for ensuring that its properties are secure and meet minimum standards. Its failure to properly inspect and reach informed conclusions in a timely manner amounts to maladministration.
30. Given that the landlord failed to complete the repair/replacement of the door within its target timeframe, and failed to properly inspect the safety of the door promptly, we find that there was maladministration. Between February 2023 and May 2024 the landlord could have done more to effectively manage its repairs service and proactively monitor the works to an appropriate conclusion. We therefore find that further remedy is required to put things right, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.
31. In considering an appropriate remedy, we have taken into account that the resident could have done more to mitigate his losses and avoid some of the impact the complaint has had on him. He could have ensured he had the landlord’s written permission before replacing the door, co-operated with it more to facilitate access for an inspection, and provided proof of his costs when requested.
32. Therefore, an order is made for the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for when there has been a failure that adversely affected the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right. Given that the door was ultimately found to be unsuitable, and the resident did not follow due process before installing it, we do not require the landlord to cover his costs in that regard.

Complaint handling

33. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint policy. It aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and respond within 15 working days. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 15 workings days and provide signposting to us.
34. The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued in line with its complaints policy. When the resident asked to escalate the complaint, he was advised that he could not do so as his complaint was about policy. While the landlord’s complaints policy does allow it to not progress complaints about ‘legislation or policies, as it has a statutory duty to implement them’, it is not clear why this provision was referenced in this case.
35. The resident was complaining about service issues which the landlord had already addressed at stage 1. He did not seek to challenge a policy, but to complain about the repairs service he had received and the financial impact this had had on him. The landlord’s initial position that it could not escalate the complaint was, therefore, inappropriate and amounts to maladministration.
36. Following the resident’s further escalation request in October 2023, the landlord did issue a stage 2 response on 10 November 2023. This was almost 6 months after the first stage 2 complaint, and significantly outside the 15-working day target timescale. In its stage 2 response, it did not apologise for its initial refusal or the subsequent delay in responding to the complaint. It also did not consider any form of redress for these failings. This was a missed opportunity to put things right, in contravention of our Dispute Resolution Principles.
37. Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, an order is made for the landlord to pay him £100 compensation for its poor complaint handling. This is in line with our remedies guidance when there has been maladministration and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failing and made no attempt to put things right.

Determination

38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s:
    1. Requests for repairs to his front door and reimbursement for a replacement door.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Orders

39. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any arrears) £350 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of repairs and the associated complaint.