Citizen Housing (202121401)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121401

Citizen Housing

14 July 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:
    1. The resident’s reports of the poor condition of her bathroom. 
    2. The associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 5 May 2019, the resident requested the landlord to upgrade the toilet and install a new shower tray. The landlord said it was unable to complete the works but provided its improvements policy giving information for the resident on how to make the changes herself if she wished to. Following a further expression of dissatisfaction regarding the bathroom, the landlord held a meeting with the resident on 20 July 2020 to discuss her concerns. 
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 10 August 2021. She said that there had been multiple issues since moving into the property and she thought the bathroom should have been replaced prior to her tenancy commencing. She sent photos of the condition of the bathroom.
  4. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint, it said that a surveyor had attended on two occasions and determined that the bathroom did not require upgrading, but it would complete the recommended repairs. It said the bathroom would only be replaced as part of a planned programme of works. It stated that the bathroom had been adapted to the previous tenants needs, and as the resident had accepted the property in its current condition, the landlord was not required to reverse those changes. It advised that the resident was responsible for any cosmetic work, including the paintwork in the bathroom.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she remained dissatisfied with the condition of the property. She wanted an independent surveyor to complete an inspection of the bathroom. She also said that a surveyor had previously found a damp reading of 76% and the ongoing issues regarding repairs to her property had impacted her health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has raised that she remains dissatisfied that the landlord did not offer to decant her (temporarily move her) during kitchen repairs at the property. Although the landlord has commented on the issue in its complaint response, it has been determined that it has not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. In accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Ombudsman scheme, we will not investigate complaints that are “made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the issue, it is recommended that she raises a formal complaint to the landlord. The resident may refer this matter to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response to her concerns.
  2. The resident has also referenced how the landlord’s failure to upgrade the bathroom has impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. However we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of repairs and problems with the resident’s health. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states 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 condition of the bathroom at the start of the tenancy

  1. In her complaint, the resident stated that she was dissatisfied with the condition of her bathroom as it had not been replaced prior to her tenancy starting. She said there was black mould in the bathroom upon moving in, a smell caused by the bathroom, and she requested that the radiator was replaced. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for maintaining bathroom equipment and drainage. It is also responsible for keeping the structure of the building in good repair, so upon the resident’s reports of damp and mould it should assess whether there is a structural cause for the problems reported. The landlord arranged several surveyor inspections in January 2020, August 2021 and damp inspections on 10 November 2021 and 25 November 2021. The landlord has therefore demonstrated that it has adequately considered the residents concerns and took the appropriate action to identify any repair issues.
  2. In the landlord’s complaint response, it outlined the works identified by the surveyor. The landlord stated that it would replace the rusted radiator, as requested by the resident. It also outlined works that it would complete to reduce the smell present in the bathroom, including fitting an air admittance valve. Since the completion of the complaints process, the landlord has also arranged additional works to remove some of the flooring to assess whether there are any damp issues contributing to the smell. The landlord also advised the resident to keep the bathroom window open to provide additional ventilation. The surveyor concluded that there were no signs of damp coming into the bathroom, so the landlord would not be expected to take additional action in regards to damp proofing the property. The resident has advised this Service that the contractor stated the damp readings were 76%. However, the landlord has provided evidence that the surveyor reported the highest damp reading identified was 29%, which was considered standard for a bathroom. The landlord had confirmed in its stage two complaint response that there were no excessive damp readings found from the damp inspections.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the resident is responsible for internal decoration, including cleaning damp and mould that is caused by poor ventilation. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord advised in its stage one complaint response that as the photos provided by the resident displayed evidence of cosmetic issues, including the condition of the paintwork, it would not complete those repairs as it was the resident’s responsibility to maintain the décor of the bathroom.
  4. In correspondence with this Service, the resident has raised that she wanted an independent surveyor to assess the property. However, the landlord’s repairs policy states that the majority of its services will be delivered by “in-house teams”, therefore it was reasonable that it acted in line with its policy and arranged for its own surveyors to attend. . Ultimately, the landlord is entitled to rely on the findings of its qualified staff and contractors, who deemed that the bathroom only required certain repairs and was not yet in a condition that warranted a full replacement before the planned date of replacement under the landlord’s programme for replacing bathrooms over time.
  5. In her complaint, the resident stated that she was dissatisfied that the bathroom had not been replaced prior to her tenancy beginning. While the landlord is expected to ensure that the property is in a lettable condition before the beginning of a new tenancy, it would not be required to install a new bathroom, unless there were significant repair issues which meant that the current bathroom could not be economically repaired.  The landlord is expected to maintain the bathroom but it is entitled to repair it rather than replace it in the first instance and it would only be expected to consider a full replacement if the bathroom could not be economically repaired or if repairs had been attempted but had not resolved the issues. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will provide a planned maintenance service, in line with legislative and regulatory requirements. In accordance with the Decent Home Standard, the lifetime of a bathroom in a house or bungalow is 30 years. As a result, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain that as the bathroom was installed 11 years ago, it would not be due to be upgraded until it was 30 years old.
  6. Furthermore, in its stage one complaint response, the landlord advised the resident that as she had viewed the property before accepting the tenancy, it would not be obliged to reverse the adaptations that it had made for the previous tenant. Whilst it is understood that the resident felt she had to accept the tenancy due to limited time available to move into a new property, ultimately, she accepted the property in its current condition and the landlord was not obliged to replace the bathroom.
  7. Overall, the landlord completed several inspections and completed the repairs identified as necessary by the contractor. The landlord has acted in line with its repair policies and obligations and is not required to do anything further regarding this issue.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that “at point of contact by the investigating officer, the customer will be advised of the timescale for a response, we aim to respond to formal complaints within 10 working days.” The resident raised her complaint on 10 August 2021 and the landlord acknowledged it on 17 August 2021. The resident then chased the complaint on 24 September 2021, 26 September 2021 and 11 October 2021. The landlord issued its stage one response on 14 October 2021, which clearly exceeded its response timeframe. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations regarding when it would issue its complaint response and it did not acknowledge or provide an explanation for the delay. As a result, this necessitated additional time and effort from the resident in pursuing the complaint.
  2. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) , awards of £50-£250 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has failed to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact on the overall outcome for the complainant. Although the delay will have caused inconvenience to the resident, ultimately the delay did not impact the outcome of the complaint. The delay was also not necessarily excessive; however, the failure should have been acknowledged by the landlord. In this case, an award of £75 is appropriate for the landlord’s omission.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of the poor condition of her bathroom. 
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. In light of the additional time and effort caused to the resident, as a result of the landlord’s delayed complaints response, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £75 compensation.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of the payment to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.