Home Group Limited (202212755)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212755

Home Group Limited

21 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 response to the resident’s concerns about recharges at the end of the tenancy.

Background

  1. The resident was a joint tenant of the landlord at the property with her partner for over five years, on an assured tenancy basis. The tenancy commenced in July 2016 and ended in January 2022 following the resident’s notice. The property is a two-bedroom semi-detached house. 
  2. Following the resident giving notice on 16 December 2021, the landlord carried out pre-termination and void inspections of the property during December 2021 and January 2022 respectively. Following these inspections, it sent the resident a recharge repairs invoice for £5215.41. No itemised breakdown of repairs and costs appears on the invoice.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord, disputing the recharge amount. She stated that a few months after moving in, there had been a leak under her sink which had caused damage to the kitchen cabinets, she said that she rang the landlord to raise a repair for this at the time, but did not receive a response. To avoid further damage to the cabinets, she then painted them with waterproof paint, which had resolved the issue. 
  4. The landlord spoke to the resident during its internal investigation of the complaint. The resident explained why she had painted the kitchen cabinets. She also said that the landlord had agreed, during the pre-termination inspection, that she could leave the carpets as they were in good condition. The landlord advised that it could find no historical record of her reporting a leak under the sink. It also said that it had only agreed to her leaving the carpets on the condition that they were in good condition after removing the furniture.  However, when furniture was removed, the landlord found that the carpet had stains on and so had to be removed and replaced.
  5. On 30 March 2022, the landlord sent its stage one response to the resident, partially upholding her complaint and reducing the amount to £4824.88. The reduction was because a skip and shed removal were no longer required as part of the clearance of the property. On the same day, the resident asked that the landlord escalate her complaint. Its final response on 2 August 2022 partially upheld the resident’s complaint by removing VAT which it had incorrectly applied. The landlord reduced the recharge to £4020.73.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied and referred the case to the Ombudsman. She requested both an explanation for the charges and confirmation that the entire sum would not be charged to her. She also said that her complaint related to the property’s condition when she moved in and how the landlord handled reported repairs when she lived there. The resident did not include the two latter issues in her original complaint to the landlord but only raised them in discussion with the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. In her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman, the resident has raised concerns about the property dating back to 2016 when the tenancy commenced. This included, boiler issues which she said had taken the landlord over a month to repair, the condition of the property and garden when she moved in and safety concerns regarding the garden fence.
  2. There is no evidence that the resident made formal complaints about these issues to the landlord while the issues were ongoing. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will only investigate complaints brought to the member landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within six months of the matters arising. This is because, over time, a reliable determination cannot be made on historical events and the Ombudsman expects a member landlord to be given the opportunity to investigate issues whilst they remain ‘live’. Therefore, whilst these historical concerns provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on more recent events, specifically those surrounding the complaint raised in February 2022.
  3. The resident’s also referred to her concerns that a neighbour had not been recharged. There is no evidence that this issue was raised through the landlord’s complaints process. In addition, the Ombudsman will not normally investigate issues that primarily relate to third parties. This investigation is concerned with whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the landlord has acted in a reasonable and fair manner towards the resident in relation to the substantive issue of recharges levied following the end of the tenancy.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its recharges following the termination of her tenancy.

  1. The resident’s tenancy Agreement states in the following paragraphs:
    1. 3.16(a) – the resident needs the landlord’s written consent to make improvements, alterations, or additions to the premises.
    2. 3.28(a)- at the end of her tenancy, the resident must leave the premises, fixtures and fittings of the property in good and lettable condition.
    3. 3.28(c)– Where the landlord considers that the resident has not left the premises and the landlord’s fixtures and fittings in good lettable condition and repair, it shall be entitled to recover the cost of reinstating the same from the resident.
  2. Standard 7 of the landlord’s Property Management Policy states that it will carry out inspection of properties at the earliest opportunity to identify statutory checks and repairs (including those which are chargeable) necessary to achieve void standards. Where possible, customers will facilitate them in carrying out pre-termination inspections. Standard 12 of the same policy states that it offers rechargeable repairs for anything that is the customer’s responsibility. 
  3. The resident wants the landlord to waive the recharge in full. She has disputed the recharge on the basis that the landlord had not responded to her reports about the leak under her sink, which was causing damage to the kitchen cabinets. She said that she had been required to take remedial action herself, which resulted in her re-painting the cupboards. In response, the landlord confirmed that it had looked into its records of the case and was unable to identify any evidence of the resident having made such reports at any point during the tenancy.
  4. There is no evidence of the resident having sought the landlord’s written consent to make the amendments to the kitchen cabinets, as required in paragraph 3.28(a) of the tenancy agreement. The landlord investigated and did not identify and evidence of the resident having raised a repair for a leak under the sink. It provided the Ombudsman with the resident’s tenancy and repair records dating back to 2016; there was no evidence of such a report of repair in the records provided. In addition, the resident signed a termination notice on 16 December 2021, agreeing to the landlord invoicing her for the cost of any repairs which were her responsibility.
  5. Based upon the above, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord acted in accordance with its policy provisions regarding pre termination and void inspections and in accordance with Paragraph 3.28(c) of the tenancy agreement and Standard 12 of its Property Management policy in taking the position that the resident was responsible for reasonable recharges at the end of the tenancy. It was appropriate, having identified no permission having been granted for the changes, nor evidence of kitchen repairs as had been stated, for it to apply its policy and to recharge the resident for the reasonable costs it had incurred in putting these issues right.
  6. The resident is concerned about the recharge, and understandably so as the final sum is significantly high. She has stated she cannot afford to pay it. The landlord has advised the resident it can set up a payment plan, so she can make payments in instalments. This was a reasonable position to take in response to the resident’s concerns from a financial perspective.   
  7. In consideration of what is to be considered within the scope of reasonable recharges, there are concerns with the landlord’s final position and the supporting records it has retained. Specifically, the landlord has relied upon discussions held during the pre-termination inspection of 20 December 2021 in stating that the resident was aware that the decision to not re-charge for carpets was reliant upon their being in a reasonable condition at a later point. The landlord notes from the inspection state ‘customer to leave carpet in the room’. There is no further record detailing any criteria that might see the resident re-charged, or any analysis of the carpet condition.
  8. In the absence of confirmation of what was discussed, it is considered unfair of the landlord to recharge for these costs. It is essential that landlord’s retain suitably detailed records of any property inspections it carries out, including the content of any discussions it has with residents during this time. These records ought to be shared with residents following such inspections in order to provide clarity and reassurance.
  9. The pre-termination inspection notes provided such clarity in relation to the kitchen recharges. The notes from the inspection state ‘all replacements will be rechargeable’ in this respect. This suggests that the resident would have been aware that this issue had been identified during the inspection and that the landlord would look to recover the costs of putting the property back to its original state. As such, it was both reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to uphold this aspect of the complaint and for it  to refuse the resident’s request that these charges be waived.
  10. The resident requested specific details as to the breakdown of the recharges. It is clear that the resident had an understanding as to why she was being charged, but had not been provided with an itemised breakdown of these charges. Her request for this information is reasonable given the large sums involved and her concerns about her ability to repay the amount. In the circumstances, it would have offered clarity and transparency if each of the landlord’s invoices had made clear exactly what was being re-charged. If available, it is recommended that the landlord now provide this information to the resident.
  11. The landlord incorrectly applied VAT to the recharge; this would have caused the resident some distress. However, it acknowledged this error in its final response to the resident and apologised to the resident for this error. It also removed costs relating to an external shed and a need to use a skip to remove items as the incoming tenant had confirmed that they would prefer to retain the shed. These were reasonable positions to take from the landlord.  
  12. In all the circumstances, the landlord’s response to the substantive issue of recharging the resident amounts to service failure. The overarching decision to recharge was fair and reasonable, however, the Ombudsman finds that the records retained do not sufficiently support its decision to recharge for the carpets. An order has been included below for these costs to be removed from the total cost outstanding in order to remedy this. In addition, it is recommended that the landlord review its record keeping processes when carrying out tenancy inspections to ensure that potentially relevant information is not omitted. It should also ensure that such records are shared with residents as a matter of course.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about being recharged for items following the end of the tenancy. 

Orders and Recommendations

Order

  1.  The landlord is to remove the costs associated with carpet replacement from the outstanding charges on the resident’s account. Evidence of this amendment to be provided to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review its procedures for completing inspections relating to the termination of tenancies to include providing itemised breakdowns of rechargeable repairs and recording discussions held between residents and landlord. Details of such inspections to be shared with residents in all cases.
  2. The landlord to provide an itemised breakdown of the outstanding recharges to the resident, including a specific breakdown of the kitchen recharges.