Optivo (202007672)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007672

Optivo

24 June 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 knotweed in her garden.
2. The condition of the kitchen when the resident moved into the property, and the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to renew it.
3. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen.
4. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s front door and toilet.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to her windows.

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(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which have not exhausted a member landlord’s complaint procedure.
In a call with this Service, on 16 June 2021 to discuss the scope of the investigation, the resident confirmed that she wanted this Service to investigate the landlord’s handling of her reports of knotweed in her garden. Although the resident did raise this issue as part of her original complaint, this was not mentioned in her escalation request. Additionally, the resident’s current concerns post-dated the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Because this matter has not exhausted the member landlord’s complaint procedure, under paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, it is not something that this Service can investigate at this stage.

Background and summary of events

The resident became the tenant of her home, which is a house, on 13 March 2020.
The landlord raised a repair for a severe leak from the resident’s toilet soil pipe on 23 March 2020. The repair records do not say when the landlord attended, but the landlord and resident’s later correspondence confirms that the landlord completed the repair on the same day.
On 21 July 2020 the resident complained that when she moved into her home there were several problems, including the standard of cleaning to her kitchen, and that her front door “is very flimsy and sticks so it’s a struggle to close and open”. The resident also said that her toilet was still leaking after the repair, and she had made private arrangements to have it fixed. She asked the landlord to refund her the money she had spent. She was also unhappy that the landlord had not returned her calls, and felt that her reports were not taken seriously.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 21 July 2020 and asked for the invoice for the toilet repair. The resident sent the landlord the invoice on 3 August 2020. The resident also reported that there were issues with her windows, as some were “broken” and had condensation.
The landlord internally confirmed on 4 August 2020 that it had inspected the front door prior to the resident moving in, and had taken videos of it working as it should. It also confirmed that the kitchen was cleaned, inspected, and deemed satisfactory prior to the resident moving in.
On 7 August 2020 the landlord responded to the complaint. It said that the resident should have contacted it, in the first instance, if her toilet needed further repair. It declined her request for compensation because it held no record of any further contact from her about the repair. The landlord said that it had photo and video evidence of the front door functioning after the voids works, but agreed to complete an inspection. It also advised that photos taken of the kitchen, following the voids work, did not show any issues with the cleanliness, but it apologised if this was not of the standard that the resident expected.
On 18 August 2020 the resident reported that her kitchen drawer was broken.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 20 August 2020. She said that the windows in her rear bedroom did not lock, and she was concerned about the security of the property. The resident said that she felt she could not rely on the landlord to fix the toilet, because it was still leaking after the landlord said it was fixed, and repeated her request for compensation for the cost of instructing her own plumber. She said there was poor communication and a lack of follow-up by the landlord about her repair reports. Finally, the resident asked when her kitchen was due to be refurbished, and said that she believed that this should have been done before she moved into her home.
On 26 August 2020 the landlord created an action plan to resolve the complaint during a complaint case conference. The action plan said that the landlord would arrange to have the windows checked for security, and arrange to attend to the front door by 8 September 2020.
On 7 September 2020 the landlord completed a repair to “ease and adjust” the front door.
The landlord sent a further complaint response on 8 September 2020. It apologised if any issues with the windows were not picked up during the void works. The landlord confirmed that it agreed to attend on 7 September 2020 (it appears that this part of the response was written at an earlier time) to assess and rectify any issues with the front door and all the windows. It explained that the resident’s kitchen was due to be assessed for renewal between 2028-2032, and advised how she could report any repairs needed to the kitchen in the meantime. It said that it would only replace the kitchen before this date if it was beyond repair. Finally, the landlord reiterated that if the resident’s toilet repair failed, she should have contacted the landlord so that its contractor could rectify it.
On 17 September 2020 the resident asked the landlord for an update, following its visit on 7 September 2020.
According to the repair records, on 23 September 2020 the kitchen drawer repair was cancelled. It was noted that the landlord was unable to gain access, although it is not clear when it attended, and left a card. It raised another repair for the drawer on the same day.
The landlord responded to the resident, on 24 September 2020. It explained that it had assessed the windows, but a specialist window contractor was required. It said that it understood that the specialist had visited on 23 September 2020. It was awaiting their findings and said that it would update the resident once it received them. There is no evidence of the landlord updating the resident.
The landlord raised a repair on 5 October 2020 for various works to the windows. It is unclear from the records when any of these works were completed.
Following contact from this Service saying that the resident remained unhappy with its complaint response, the landlord sent the resident review forms to complete on 30 October 2020.
The landlord cancelled the kitchen drawer repair on 2 November 2020. According to its repair records, it was unable to gain access and left a card for the resident.
On 6 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and asked to escalate her complaint. She said that her front door had become worse, the seal had broken; and somebody had inspected her windows, which had no seals on, but she had not heard anything since. The resident also asked for further information regarding when her kitchen was due to be updated, because she felt that 2035 was a long time to wait. She said that she also “had some issues” with the kitchen that had developed in the last few weeks (but did not expand on these). Finally, the resident reiterated that she felt the landlord should pay her compensation because the toilet repair carried out by the landlord did not resolve the issue.
Another repair was raised for the resident’s kitchen drawer on 16 November 2020.
The resident asked for another complaint review form on 18 November 2020 and the landlord said it would post this to her.
The resident completed the landlord’s review panel request form on 4 December 2020. She said she remained unhappy with the length of time taken by the landlord to complete repairs to her front door, toilet, and windows. She asked for the outstanding repairs to be completed; for compensation; and for a new kitchen to be fitted in the property, noting that hers was “falling apart”. The landlord asked for further information on 9 December 2020, and the resident replied on the same day. She said that the landlord had only completed repairs (she did not explain which repairs) in late November 2020, when they should have been done after she complained on 8 September 2020. She confirmed that her front door still needed to be repaired, because it had broken again, and said that no repairs had been completed in her kitchen. The resident also said that she was informed by the landlord’s employee on 24 April 2020 that somebody would visit to assess all of her concerns with the property, but she did not hear anything further. She asked for £2000 compensation, or a full new kitchen for the distress caused by delays, missed appointments and “the empty promises that have been made”.
On 30 December 2020, the landlord internally confirmed that it had previously adjusted the door, which was left in good working order. It also inspected all the windows on the upper floor and took measurements in case they needed replacing.
After visiting the property on 6 January 2021, the landlord internally reported that it found all the windows to be in good condition with no issues. It also confirmed that the front door, which was “comparatively new”, had “dropped” and needed adjusting correctly by a door fitter. There is no evidence of it informing the resident.
On 7 January 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and said that it had decided not to escalate her complaint to review. It said that all repairs, except for the door, were now complete. The landlord confirmed that it assessed the door on 6 January 2021 and its contractor would contact the resident to arrange to adjust it. The landlord advised that the resident’s kitchen was not due to be replaced until 2028 and asked the resident to report any repairs. It apologised for the length of time it took to carry out the repairs, and acknowledged that “our communication with you has been poor and there have been missed call backs”. In recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident by these failings, it offered the resident £250 compensation. The landlord informed the resident on the next steps she could take if she remained unhappy with its final response.
On 8 January 2021 the landlord eased and adjusted the door.
The landlord accepted an invoice from its contractor for the repair to the resident’s kitchen drawer on 17 January 2021. It is not clear, however, when the repair was completed.

Assessment and findings

The condition of the kitchen when the resident moved into the property, and the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to renew it.

Each aspect of a home has an expected lifespan. In accordance with the Decent Home Standard, the lifetime of a kitchen in a house or bungalow is 30 years. When a resident reports that their kitchen is not of a reasonable standard, a landlord should carry out an inspection to ensure that the decent home standard guidance is being met.
In this case, four months after moving, in the resident reported that she was unhappy with both the cleanliness of the kitchen when she moved in, and that her kitchen was not of the quality that she had expected.
In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord confirmed that it assessed and photographed the kitchen before the resident moved in. It explained that it did not find any issues of cleanliness, the kitchen did not require replacement, and was not due for cyclical renewal until between 2028 and 2032. The landlord informed the resident that she should report any repairs required in the meantime. The resident clearly believed that the kitchen was not in an appropriate state. This investigation does not seek to determine whether her, or the landlord’s opinions on the subject were the more appropriate. However, it is reasonable for landlords to rely on the assessments of their qualified staff and contractors, and, in this case, the landlord’s conclusions and explanations were reasonably based on inspections and assessments by its staff, and in line with the Decent Home guidance.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen.

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that if a repair is not an emergency, the landlord will arrange an appointment for a time that suits the resident. The policy does not give timeframes for when it will complete repairs. The landlord will measure the amount of time it takes from the day a repair is reported through to its completion date, even if it involves more than one trade. If a resident is not at home when the landlord attends an appointment, and it is unable to reach them, the landlord will leave a calling card. If it does not hear further from the resident, it will cancel the repair.
The responsive repairs policy confirms that the resident is responsible for reporting any repair needed or defect in the property that the landlord is responsible for. There are things that the resident is responsible for, including internal doors, handles, hinges, and cupboard catches.
There is no evidence of the resident reporting repairs required to her kitchen until 18 August 2020, when she reported that a kitchen drawer was broken. According to the repair records on 23 September 2020 and 2 November 2020 two separate jobs to repair the drawer were cancelled. The records noted that the landlord was unable to gain access and left a card on both occasions. Another repair was raised for the resident’s kitchen drawer on 16 November 2020. As of 9 December 2020, the resident said that no repairs had been completed in her kitchen. The landlord received an invoice for the repair to the drawer from its contractors on 17 January 2021. It is not clear, however, if or when the repair was completed.
As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, repair logs, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. While the landlord has provided repair logs and some internal correspondence, these are limited, and it is still unclear when or if repairs were completed to the kitchen drawer. The resident also refers to “repairs” needed to her kitchen throughout the complaint, but, based on the records, the only repair reported was the drawer. The landlord’s final response does not confirm that the kitchen repair was specifically completed, or on what day, but says that all repairs were “completed”. The landlord being unable to demonstrate the dates that it completed repairs indicates poor record keeping, and is a service failure.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s front door and toilet.

In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and outside of the property in a reasonable state of repair and proper working order. This includes:
1. window catches, sash cords and window frames.
2. any installations it provided for supplying water, gas, or electricity, and for heating, hot water and sanitation. This includes basins, toilets, flushing systems, and waste pipes.
The tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for reporting a repair to a landlord.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that an emergency repair is “anything causing immediate risk to the health, safety and security of any occupants and/or visitors’ to your home, or, causing immediate damage to a property’s structure, fixtures and/or fittings”. It gives breaches of security to outside doors and windows, and blocked mains drains, soil pipes, or the only toilet as examples of typical emergency repairs. The responsive repairs policy says that the landlord will “make safe” emergency repairs within six hours of the repair being reported.
The landlord and resident’s communication during the complaint confirms that the landlord attended on the same day that the resident reported a leak to her toilet, and within a reasonable timescale to complete the repair on 23 March 2020. This is not disputed by the resident. However, the resident later complained that the leak had reoccurred. There is no evidence of the resident reporting the reoccurrence, until she raised a formal complaint on 21 July 2020, and by this time she had instructed her own plumber for the repair.
While a landlord should try to complete a repair on the first attempt, where possible, there will some occasions where more than one attempt to complete a repair is required. The resident should report this to a landlord, who can then rectify the matter. If the landlord is not informed that further repair is required, it cannot be held responsible for the repair and therefore would not be expected to offer compensation. This is because the landlord’s obligations to repair begin when the repair is reported.
Following the resident’s report on 21 July 2020 that her front door was “flimsy” and difficult to open and close, the landlord confirmed that it was in good condition following voids works. Nonetheless, on 7 August 2020 the landlord agreed to inspect the door and completed a repair to it on 7 September 2020. On 6 November 2020 the resident reported further problems with the door, and further works were completed on 8 January 2020. Although the resident was concerned about the security of the door, there is no indication that it could not be closed and locked. Therefore, there is no indication that the door issue should have been addressed as an emergency.
The landlord took approximately two months to inspect and complete repairs to the front door on two occasions. While there will be unavoidable delays in some repairs being completed, the landlord will be expected to communicate with the resident and provide an explanation and apology for the delays. The landlord has acknowledged that there were delays in it completing some repairs, and that its communication with the resident was poor. It offered an apology, and compensation of £250 for the overall delays, which was proportionate to the issues experienced and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to her windows.

As previously noted, it is reasonable for landlords to rely on the assessments of its operatives. It is for the landlord to decide how to proceed with its findings on the repairs required to the windows, in accordance with its policy and the resident’s tenancy agreement. However, the landlord would be required to explain its findings to the resident, especially when the resident has complained about the issue.
The landlord has been unable to demonstrate that the windows were checked and signed off at the void stage. It therefore apologised if these were overlooked and, in response to the resident’s concerns about the windows’ condition and security, completed an inspection. It is unclear whether any repairs were completed to the windows, but when the landlord instructed a window specialist to complete a further inspection, it was concluded that they did not need further repair or replacement.
The landlord internally confirmed that it found that the windows did not require replacement or repairs. However, there is no evidence of the landlord advising the resident of its conclusion with regard to the windows, which, if it had, may have resolved this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint about the condition of the kitchen when the resident moved into the property, and its response to the resident’s request to renew it.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s:
1. handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen.
2. handling of the resident’s request for repairs to her windows.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s front door and toilet satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its appropriately qualified contractors and has confirmed that it inspected, and passed, the condition of the kitchen prior to the resident moving in. Its explanations about renewing the kitchen were reasonable and in line with relevant guidance.
The repair records are not clear about when the landlord completed the kitchen drawer repair, and the resident said that no repairs were completed. This aspect of the complaint remained outstanding, and the landlord failed to address it in its complaint investigation.
The landlord provided reasonable redress for its delays completing the door repairs, by way of an apology and compensation. It also completed a repair to the resident’s toilet soil stack within the timescales in its policy. It was the resident’s responsibility to report any further toilet repairs required to the landlord, so the landlord’s not to reimburse the resident for a repair by her private contractor was reasonable.
Finally, the evidence indicates that the landlord inspected the property’s windows and found these to be in good condition. However, there is no evidence of the landlord informing the resident of its findings or addressing this aspect in its final complaint response.

Orders

In light of the findings of the investigation, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150. This is comprised of:
1. £75 for the lack of clarity about the repair to the kitchen drawer.
2. £75 for failing to explain to the resident the decision about the window repairs.
This is in addition to the £250 already offered by the landlord, which it should also now pay if it has not already done so.
This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made, and the resident should contact this Service if payment has not been received by the due date.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its repairs record keeping practices, to ensure that it has a clear audit trail of repair details.