Optivo (202002957)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002957

Optivo

27 April 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 

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to resident’s request for the reimbursement costs of a front door lock.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a four-bedroom flat. The resident is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a housing association.
3. The landlord operates a two-stage formal complaints policy but will attempt to resolve the issue outside of the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should respond within 10 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a formal review of the decision and a response should be provided within 10 working days.
4. Under the tenancy agreement the ‘resident has the obligation to report promptly any disrepair or defects at the property’.
5. Under the landlord compensation policy it can choose to make a ‘discretionary payment for failure of service of up to £250 which recognise the residents time, trouble or inconvenience’.
6. Under the landlord’s compensation policy ‘no compensation is payable if the customer had not informed us a repair was necessary’
7. Under the resident’s tenancy agreement ‘the tenant has the right to carry out repairs which are the landlord’s responsibility where the tenant has reported the need for repair in writing and where the landlord has, without good reason, failed to carry out the repair within 28 days of receiving such a report’.

Summary of events

8. On 28 May 2019, the resident contacted the landlord in regard to a replacement front door lock at the property. She provided a receipt that she had paid £240 including VAT for a locksmith to come and replace the lock as it would not open with the key. She stated that she attempted to call the landlord’s after-hours number but her phone had died and was not able to retrieve the number. She asked that the landlord reimburse her the £240 for the replacement lock.
9. On 29 May 2019, the landlord responded to the resident’s request and said that it would not be able to pay for the replacement lock as it was the resident’s responsibility. It provided the resident with a link to ‘the residents repairs responsibilities’.
10. On 29 May 2019, the resident responded to the landlord’s email and said that she did not lose her keys and the issue was with a damaged lock and asked for reimbursement.
11. On 3 June 2019, the landlord apologised for the resident’s ‘ordeal’ but advised that they were unable to reimburse her as she used an independent locksmith.
12. On 11 June 2019, the resident asked for the issue to be escalated to the complaints department.
13. On 19 June 2019, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her complaint. It said that it would aim to respond to the resident’s complaint within 10 working days.
14. On 24 June 2019, the resident contacted the landlord and disagreed that as she used an independent locksmith that the landlord was not liable for the cost. She requested that the landlord reimburse her for the cost of the replacement lock within 7 days or she would begin court proceedings and seek to have the landlord investigated.
15. On 25 June 2019, the landlord issued the resident with its stage one response. It said that it was unable to reimburse the resident for the replacement lock as the job was completed privately. It explained that if the resident had reported the repair to the landlord it would have attended as an emergency. It highlighted that if the resident was unhappy with the decision, she could seek a review within 10 working days, or the case would be closed.
16. On 11 August 2019, the resident contacted the landlord and said that she had deducted £240 from the rent for July 2019 to cover the cost of the lock replacement. She said that the landlord fitted the lock to a poor standard and that she would be making a formal complaint about cracks in the walls at the property that occurred when the landlord installed double glazed windows.
17. On 12 August 2019, the landlord contacted the resident and apologised that she was unhappy with the decision and said that the resident had gone past the time frame to escalate the complaint to review.
18. On 26 July 2020, the resident contacted this service about her complaint regarding the reimbursement of the £240 paid for a locksmith to replace her front door lock.
19. On 22 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for the complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process.
20. On 29 September 2020, the landlord emailed the resident and advised that her complaint had completed the landlord’s complaints process.

Assessment and findings

21. The resident contacted the landlord in relation to the reimbursement cost of the replacement lock at the property. The landlord explained that it was the resident’s responsibility to replace the lock and that it would not reimburse the resident. Whilst the resident’s circumstances were undoubtedly frustrating under the landlord’s responsive repairs policy the resident is responsible for notifying the landlord of the need for repairs. The landlord was not given the opportunity to put the problem right and therefore there is no obligation on the landlord to re-imburse the resident for the cost.
22. Under the landlord’s compensation policy it can award compensation for time and inconvenience however as the landlord was not informed of the issue it did not have the opportunity to put it right. As the landlord was not informed of the situation it acted in accordance with its compensation policy by awarding no discretionary compensation.

Determination (decision)

23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to resident’s request for reimbursement costs of a front door lock.

Reasons

24.  The landlord was not given the opportunity to put right the problem and therefore there is no obligation on the landlord to re-imburse the resident for the cost or offer any discretionary compensation payment.