Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202208649)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208649

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

6 December 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:
    1. decision to recharge the resident for the front door lock replacement.
    2. Record keeping in relation to repairs to the front door .
    3. handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The resident is a wheelchair user and the landlord is aware of this.
  2. In 2017 the landlord arranged various repairs at the resident’s property, including replacement windows and back door. The landlord also agreed to replace the front door, but the replacement was delayed following discussions with the local authority’s social care department regarding widening the front doorway to make it easier for the resident to access using her wheelchair. The front door was not replaced and the landlord’s records do not make it clear why this was not done.
  3. On 13 June 2022, the resident reported that her key had snapped in the front door lock. A contractor attended the same day to complete the repair, which required the lock to be replaced.
  4. The resident raised a complaint on 15 June 2022, as she had been charged £77.31 for the repair. She disputed the charge as she said the door had been faulty since 2012, and the door was scheduled to be replaced on 21 October 2017 but this was not completed. She said the repair was referred to adult care (a service offered by the council), but she had not received any further correspondence regarding the issue. In her escalation, the resident said she only had one key, due to previous issues with the key breaking in the door.
  5. In the landlord’s final complaint response on 12 July 2022, it said that lock changes are the resident’s responsibility, in line with its chargeable repairs policy. In response to the resident’s report that the door should have been replaced in 2017, it said a full lock change was carried out on 20 March 2020. It advised if the resident had a back-up key, as it recommends as best practice, the contractor would not have needed to replace the lock.
  6. In her complaint to this Service, the resident said she remained dissatisfied as she disputed liability for the charge due to the outstanding repairs to the door from 2017. She wanted the landlord to remove the charge for the repair and replace the front door.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the recharge of the resident’s lock replacement.

  1. The landlord’s chargeable repairs policy states that it will charge the resident for a repair, if they have caused damage to the property, by accident or on purpose, as it is their responsibility to fix. The policy includes “replacing locks if keys are lost” as a chargeable repair. The tenancy agreement also states that residents are responsible for repairing, renewing or replacing “lost or broken keys to the property doors and windows”.
  2. It was reasonable, and in line with its repairs policy, that the landlord initially recharged the resident for the repair as she is responsible for repairs to broken keys, and replacing locks if there is no alternative key. However, upon the resident disputing the charge due to outstanding repairs to the door, the landlord would be expected to investigate the issues raised by the resident and determine whether the door repair issues had caused the key to break in the lock.
  3. When the resident raised her complaint, the landlord assessed the relevant previous repair issues with the door. It stated that the front door lock was changed on 20 March 2020 and it repaired a loose door handle on 15 July 2021. As the landlord had attended the repair issues reported by the resident at the time, it was reasonable that it concluded it had fulfilled its repair obligations with regards to the lock. Although it is acknowledged that the landlord had agreed to replace the door previously and this will be addressed later in this report. Furthermore, as the lock had been replaced, there is no indication that any of the previous repair issues, including the outstanding door replacement from 2017, would have impacted the condition of the lock, or led to the key breaking in it. As a result, it was reasonable that the landlord determined the resident was responsible for the cost of the replacement key.
  4. In the landlord’s complaint response, it said the contractor had advised that the lock had to be replaced, as the resident only had one key, which had broken in the lock. The landlord advised that in line with best practice, the resident should have had a spare key, which would have prevented the requirement for the lock to be replaced. In response, the resident stated that she only had one key due to previous instances of the key breaking in the lock. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident had reported any further instances of her key breaking following the lock replacement on 20 March 2020 or that she had informed the landlord she only had one key. As a result, the landlord did not have the opportunity to provide the resident with any additional support to get a second key. Also, it was the resident’s responsibility, as in line with the tenancy agreement, to source a replacement key.
  5. It is of concern that the resident advised the landlord provided two different prices for the costings of the door repair. The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 16 June 2022, stating that she had to pay £68.79 for the cost of the repair. However, in her complaint, the resident advised that she received an earlier letter informing her the cost was £77.79. Although the landlord confirmed in its stage two complaint response that the cost of the repair was £68.79, it should ensure it is consistent in its communication to avoid confusion or distress to the resident. The landlord should also ensure that it can provide evidence of the invoice, in the case that the resident disputes the charge amount.

Complaint handling and record keeping

  1. The Ombudsman’s approach to complaint handling is set out in our Complaint Handling Code (published on our website). In line with this guidance, the landlord should address all points raised in the complaint, and provide clear reasons for any decisions made. In this case, the resident had raised clear concerns regarding the condition of the door, due to the outstanding request for a replacement door from 2017. Although the landlord may have determined that the previous repair issues had not impacted its decision to recharge the resident for the repair, it still should have confirmed its position regarding the door replacement. As it failed to do so, it has not demonstrated that it appropriately managed the resident’s expectations or considered the complaint in full.
  2. The resident raised to this Service that as an outcome of the complaint, she wanted the door to be replaced. In her submissions to the Ombudsman, the resident has provided a copy of an email from the landlord dated 9 June 2017 suggesting that the social care department had agreed to widen the front doorway to allow better wheelchair access. Therefore it appears that the door was due to be replaced in 2017, but the repair records provided to the Ombudsman do not make it clear why this was not done. Also, the landlord’s responses to the complaint do not explain its position regarding the door replacement other than to say that there were no reported repair issues involving the door between July 2021 and the key breaking in the lock in June 2022.
  3. Due to this lack of evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the landlord’s response to this issue was reasonable, as the landlord has not given a response.  As this issue has not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, the landlord should contact the resident, confirm her outstanding concerns, and respond to a new complaint through its internal complaints process. The resident may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response to her concerns.
  4. This represents poor record keeping and poor complaint handling by the landlord. The landlord should have accurate records concerning the repairs arranged in 2017, including any reasons why repairs were not completed as scheduled. The landlord should be able to provide this information to the Ombudsman when required, following a complaint. The landlord was aware that the resident has vulnerabilities and that there was involvement from the social care department regarding the door replacement. In view of this, the landlord should have kept clear records regarding the door replacement and its agreement with social care regarding this and it should have communicated the next steps clearly to the resident.
  5. This Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation for distress and inconvenience. In line with this guidance, awards of £50-£100 are appropriate when there was a minor failure by the landlord, that it has not appropriately acknowledged. There was a missed opportunity by the landlord to address the resident’s additional concerns regarding the outstanding replacement of the door. The landlord should therefore pay the resident £100 as its failing may lead to additional time and effort in the resident needing to pursue a further complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to recharge the resident for the front door lock replacement.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its record keeping in relation to repairs to the front door .
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the associated complaint.

 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In light of its complaint handling failures, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation.
  2. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss any outstanding concerns regarding the door replacement and respond to this through its complaints process.
  3. The landlord should provide proof to this Service that it has complied with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff training requirements regarding complaint handling, to ensure that all points of the complaint are addressed.