Citizen Housing (202005284)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005284

Citizen Housing

3 September 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 is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs at the property, including to the floorboards, toilet, and to prevent pest access.
2. The effect of outstanding repairs on the resident’s family’s health.

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.
In accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.

The effect of outstanding repairs on the resident’s family’s health.

The resident has explained how the outstanding floorboard repairs have impacted on her family’s health. Unfortunately, in line with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Because of that, this investigation does not seek to consider any specific health impact. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord’s and the property concerned is a house.
After viewing the property with the landlord, the resident completed a mutual exchange to move into her property on 25 February 2020. The resident signed a disclaimer on this date. In it, the landlord identified wooden boarding applied to the garage and wooden decking (the landlord said these were DIY, which appears to mean that the previous tenant had made these alterations); and damage to the rear external wooden door. The disclaimer confirmed that the resident would be responsible for them and respective DIY repairs, noting that a thorough property inspection was not possible due to furnishings. The resident would also be responsible for decorating and maintenance to the previous tenant’s own fittings and fixtures.
Between 9 and 21 June 2020, the landlord raised several repairs, including to the front door (on 18 June 2020 the landlord advised the resident it would not renew the door this time because it locked and was secure) and for a leak through the ceiling from the upstairs bathroom on 21 June 2020. The bathroom repair was marked as complete on the same day and follow-on works complete on 30 June 2020
The resident raised a complaint on 23 July 2020 in relation to several issues she experienced in her home. She said that viewing the property was difficult due to the previous tenant’s boxes being around. The property was “in a bad way” but the resident needed to move, and she was unhappy with the landlord’s subsequent handling of her repairs. The landlord called the resident on 24 July 2020 and noted that it visited the property and would carry out several repairs, including to the front and rear doors. It appears that the landlord closed the complaint as a “quick resolution” at the time.
On 29 July 2020 the landlord raised a repair for damage to the rear door and to refix the front door/frame, to ensure it closed tightly.
The resident reported an uncontainable leak in the bedroom of the property on 19 August 2020. The repair for this was marked as complete on the same day and the landlord raised follow-on repairs on 20 August 2020 to inspect and repair the roof above the front bedroom.
On 2 September 2020 the landlord completed the door repairs.
On 4 September 2020 the resident reported a leak into her bedroom and the landlord attended on the same day. On 8 September 2020 the resident reported a separate bathroom leak. The repair was marked as complete on the same day and follow-on works raised.
Following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 18 September 2020 to advise that the resident had complained about how it responded to her reports of repairs needed in the property. We asked the landlord to treat our contact as a complaint under stage one of its complaint’s procedures.
The landlord called the resident on 25 September 2020 to gather details on the complaint. It noted that the resident did not see the extent of damage to the property until she moved in. The landlord noted on its system that there were issues with floorboards lifting, holes in floorboards, upstairs creaks, and the leak was still outstanding. It also wrote to the resident on the same day to confirm that it aimed to respond to the complaint within ten working days.
On 28 September 2020 the landlord raised works in relation to “the condition of the property”. This was marked as complete on 6 November 2020.
On 29 September 2020 the landlord spoke with the resident regarding a leak to the bedroom and raised a repair. It noted that the leak was containable at present. On 2 October 2020 the landlord raised a repair for the toilet’s noisy cistern and on 6 October 2020 completed repairs to the roof above the resident’s bedroom.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 9 October 2020. It said that, when residents complete a mutual exchange, they take the property “as seen” and the landlord does not inspect the property to the same extent as void properties. The landlord said that because the inspection was “around” the existing tenant, there would be potential repairs issues that were only picked up by the incoming tenant when they moved in. However, the landlord confirmed that a number of repairs were identified and confirmed in a letter dated 25 February 2020. Additionally, the resident agreed to accept responsibility for any respective DIY repairs. The landlord acknowledged that the resident identified further repairs, over and above those identified at inspection. As a result, it agreed to arrange for a full technical inspection of the property to identify and resolve these. However, the landlord acknowledged there had been an unnecessary delay in it booking this visit. The landlord confirmed it booked this for 14 October 2020 and apologised for the delay.
The landlord completed the inspection of the property on 14 October 2020 and raised several repair orders. The landlord agreed to look at the floorboards once the resident removed the floor coverings.
On 9 November 2020 the landlord raised repairs, including for loose floorboards in the bedrooms and landing. The repairs were marked as complete on 18 November 2020 and follow-on repairs were complete on 2 December 2020.
On 23 November 2020 the landlord raised an inspection for the property on 27 November 2020. Following this visit, the landlord raised subsequent repairs to repair a hole in the plaster in the kitchen (completed 3 December 2020).
On 4 December 2020 the resident contacted the landlord. The landlord noted that she was not happy with the standard of works to repair the hole in the plaster in the kitchen, which was to prevent rats from gaining access. She said the operative did not go outside to see where rats were gaining access, did not fill a second hole, and declined to unscrew two small pieces of decking. The resident said she caught five rats in a week and the operative was due to return to complete the plasterwork, but she did not want him to return.
The landlord called the resident on 7 December 2020. It noted that it was of the understanding that the operative had completed the works he was instructed to but, because the resident was experiencing issues with rats, it would see if pest control would visit. It had also arranged for a bricklayer to visit to fill a small hole in the outside toilet floor.
The resident reported, on 11 January 2021, that her radiator was not getting warm and the landlord raised a repair. On 12 January 2021 the landlord raised several finishing works, including for a gap to the bathroom door and for the plastering in the kitchen. The repair for the radiator was marked as complete on 13 January 2021 and the ‘snagging works’ were marked as complete on 15 January 2021.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 19 January 2021, following contact from the resident. We confirmed that the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs (including to: the bathroom door; the condition of the flooring, the removal of carpets and the costs incurred; the condition of the floorboards; the heating; panelling to the garage doors; the electric lights flickering; and the toilet). We also said that the resident complained about how the landlord had handled the resident’s pest reports.
On 12 February 2021 the resident reported that her central heating was not working. The repair was marked as complete on the same day.
On 19 February 2021 the landlord noted “made contact with tenant, agreed to visit on Friday 26 February 2021”. The landlord raised a repair on 26 February 2021 to assess the heating system “as customer has advised there are cold spots on the radiators and recent repairs have been raised in connection with the pressure”.
The landlord’s internal email of 26 February 2021 says that when it initially carried out the work to the squeaking floorboards, it replaced sections of the floor and inserted screws where it could, but the resident felt the issue was unresolved. The landlord said that it explained to the resident that it was normal to have some noise from floorboards, especially with no underlay or carpets down. It also mentioned some possible ways to reduce the noise, which would involve extensive works and decanting the resident, but ultimately the landlord would not be able to guarantee that there would be no noise from the floor.
On 26 February 2021 the landlord attended the property in relation to the heating issues. It found no issues with the heating system and noted that the resident advised that this was fixed during the visit on 12 February 2020.
The landlord internally confirmed on 26 March 2021 that pest control attended that day and found no evidence of rats. Pest control did, however, find a hole in the wall, and the landlord raised a repair for it.
On 30 March 2021 the landlord called the resident regarding her complaint. It apologised for the delay in resolving it and said it would be in touch within the next week. The landlord noted that the resident said she removed her carpets from the stairs and two bedrooms for the landlord but could not afford to get new carpet for the bedrooms as she threw the old ones away. The landlord asked for any receipts the resident may have, which she subsequently sent.
The landlord internally corresponded on 1 April 2020 regarding the toilet repair. It explained that a repair was raised but, due to system issues was not complete, and the resident confirmed this was still outstanding and related to the noise it made when it flushed. On 15 April 2021 the landlord raised an emergency repair for the toilet, which was completed on the same day.
On 6 May 2021 the landlord filled in the hole identified by pest control.
The landlord sent its final complaint response of 12 May 2021. It acknowledged that a high number of repairs were identified since the mutual exchange took place, and said the majority of issues raised had already been rectified.
The landlord said that there were some delays due to the coronavirus pandemic in relation to repairs; however, there were service failures specifically related to the toilet repairs and pest control follow-on repairs. The landlord apologised for this and offered £200.00 compensation. The landlord apologised for any misunderstanding in its responsibilities relating to the floorboards and carpets and explained that the resident needed to remove carpets in order for it to access the floorboards to repair them. It confirmed that its policy, included as part of the tenancy agreement, stipulated that it was the resident’s responsibility to clear repair work area of personal items or valuables prior to a scheduled appointment. As the landlord was not responsible for the carpets, it would not cover the costs of replacing them or relaying them.

Assessment and findings

In line with the resident’s tenancy agreement the resident is responsible for repairing and maintaining all improvements and fixtures and fittings that they install in the property. The resident must redecorate the property as often as is needed to keep their home in good decorative condition. In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord may ask the resident to move or remove, at their expense, any fixtures, fittings or furniture they have installed to allow the landlord to carry out repairs or improvements to the property.
The landlord has not provided a repairs policy; however, its website explains that it aims to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours or make them safe until a permanent repair is possible (within 12 days). Emergency repairs are generally where there is an immediate health and safety risk to residents or the structure or the property has been damaged (including uncontainable water leaks). The landlord’s website confirms that it has a backlog of repairs as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs at the property, including to the floorboards, toilet, and to prevent pest access.

While the resident remains concerned about issues with her floorboards, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord inspected them on more than one occasion (on 18 November 2020 and 26 February 2021) and carried out minor repairs. The operative who attended found that the initial condition of the floorboards was sufficient and, while he did have recommendations on how to reduce the creaking, these would not definitely work, given that there were no floor coverings. When deciding on how best to proceed with a repair, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. Ultimately, the landlord’s operative concluded that there was no guaranteed way to reduce the noise, and that the noise was at a normal level. There appears to be no dispute that the floorboards emit noise when walked on, and the resident’s frustrations with the issue are somewhat understandable, but no evidence has been provided indicating that the noise is specifically resulting from a repair matter. Because of that the landlord’s actions and decisions in regard to them were reasonable.
The landlords request that the resident remove the carpets on the stairs and bedrooms, to enable it to inspect the floorboards, was in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement and common practice. While this would have caused the resident inconvenience, in line with the tenancy agreement and mutual exchange disclaimer, the carpets were ultimately the resident’s responsibility. Because there was no service failure in the landlord asking the resident to remove her floor coverings to inspect the floorboards, the landlord would not be required to bear the costs of their replacement.
Various other repairs were raised since the resident moved into the property, and throughout the course of the complaint. The landlord attended to the repairs it identified as emergencies (for example: the leaks raised and resolved on 21 June 2020, 19 August 2020, 4 September 2020, and 8 September 2020; and the heating repair raised and resolved on 12 February 2021) within its 24-hour target. There were occasions where the landlord did not complete repairs within its 12 day target (such as: the door repairs raised on 29 July 2020 and completed on 2 September 2020; and roof repairs above the bedroom raised on 20 August 2020 and completed on 6 October 2020). The landlord explained that it was experiencing delays as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, which is understandable, given what was happening in the period in question.
Nonetheless, the landlord also identified unreasonable delays in raising and completing some of the repairs, including to the toilet and follow-on works from pest control. Some of these works were delayed for several months, and there is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated about them. Therefore, it would be reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation for the time and trouble the resident has spent pursuing these repairs. The compensation offered by the landlord was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, and proportionate to the distress and inconvenience that would have been caused to the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings. It has also, appropriately, apologised for its shortcomings to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord has apologised and offered a proportionate level of compensation for the delays in it completing the toilet and pest control follow-on repairs. The landlord has taken steps to investigate the resident’s concerns regarding her floorboards, completed minor repairs and ultimately acted on the opinions of its appropriately qualified operative. It has also explained, in line with the tenancy agreement and common practice, why there was no service failure in its request that the resident remove her floor coverings for it to inspect the floorboards and therefore why it would not cover the cost of their replacement.