Bristol City Council (202127683)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127683

Bristol City Council

15 August 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 response to the resident’s request for it to reimburse the cost of a private contractor the resident hired to repair a faulty aerial.

Background

  1. On the 24 November 2021 the resident informed the landlord that he had been unable to use his TV due to a faulty TV aerial and had previously hired a private contractor to repair the aerial. The contractor was unable to do this due to it being a communal aerial and advised the resident to contact the landlord. Once aware of the issue, the landlord raised the repair works internally and the issue was resolved on 30 November 2021.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 November 2021 and advised he was satisfied with the contractor sent by the landlord, and that the works had been completed and the issue was now resolved. The resident also requested reimbursement for the privately hired contractor previously called out by the resident. The landlord informed the resident that the issue should have been raised with it first, but did attach a compensation form for the resident to submit a claim.
  3. The resident submitted a claims form as he believed it was the landlord’s responsibility to pay the fee charged by the private contractor as he was not aware the communal area was a repair issue that the landlord would be responsible for. After consideration, the landlord declined the claim due to the issue not being raised with it initially and, because if it had known it would have repaired the aerial. The landlord advised that the information about reporting any repair is in the resident’s tenancy agreement and also on its website.
  4. The resident was dissatisfied with this response and raised a stage one complaint on 16 December 2021. The resident included concerns about the clarity of the tenancy agreement. The landlord’s stage one response on 10 January 2022 advised the resident that it did not find any failures throughout the process and would not be upholding the complaint. It referred to the relevant section of the tenancy agreement and provided information on how to escalate the complaint if the resident remained dissatisfied.
  5. The resident escalated his stage one complaint on 08 February 2022 and informed the landlord that if he had known the landlord would have repaired the issue, he would not have paid a private contractor to do so. The landlord sent its final stage two response on 07 March 2022 and advised it was not upholding the complaint, that the tenancy agreement directly refers to communal TV aerials, and that this information is readily available. It apologised but stated that there had been no fault.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to this Service on 07 March 2022 as he disagreed with the landlord’s decision to not uphold the complaint and to decline to reimburse the costs.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is not disputed that the resident hired a private contractor before informing the landlord he was experiencing issues with the TV aerial. Within the tenancy agreement, in paragraph 2.11, it states that any repair work must be reported to the landlord. It would not be appropriate for the landlord to be held responsible for repair work carried out before it was aware of the issue and before it had the chance to proactively repair it itself. Within the tenancy agreement, paragraph 5.3 states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining communal TV aerials. It would therefore be expected that if the resident was experiencing issues with this item, he should have reported it to the landlord within the first instance.
  2. When the resident informed the landlord of the faulty TV aerial it raised the works internally and repaired the issue within three days. This is an appropriate timeframe and is compliant with its repairs policy. The resident was happy with the works that had been carried out and this is not disputed.
  3. Following the repairs, the resident requested reimbursement of the private contractor’s charges. The landlord acted fairly by providing the resident with a claims form. Although the landlord did not uphold the claims form as it found no fault in its actions, it acted appropriately by considering the claim and providing the resident with the opportunity for his claim to be investigated.
  4. Throughout the complaints process, the landlord investigated the resident’s claims at each stage, it provided informative responses to each concern and when appropriate referred to specific paragraphs within the tenancy agreement. The landlord took steps to investigate the tenancy agreement and determine whether there were any discrepancies relating to the complaint. It acted reasonably throughout the investigation and complaints process.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for it to reimburse the cost of a private contractor the resident hired to repair a faulty aerial.