SHAL Housing Limited (202233228)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233228

SHAL Housing Limited

21 May 2024

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 the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property including the heating system, plasterwork in the toilet and the hallway, the front door, damp in one of the bedrooms, cracks in the bedroom ceilings, the bedroom door, the downstairs toilet sink, the lock on the bathroom door, and a brick lean-to.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord.
During a visit to the property in May 2022, the resident showed the landlord the plasterwork on one of the lounge walls and on one of the walls in the hallway which she said had been carried-out to a poor standard. The landlord said it would replaster the wall in the lounge. It acknowledged the plasterwork on the wall in the hallway was poor but said that this could be rectified by the resident filling in the plaster in a few places.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 February 2023, to list repairs needed to her property. She said:
1. The heating did not work properly and one of her children had been ill all winter as a result. She said the heater in the bathroom did not work at all. One of the heaters was hanging off the wall.
2. She had had to make a hole in the bathroom door after one of her children had locked themselves in the bathroom.
3. She wanted the landlord to install a new sink in the downstairs toilet. The plasterwork in the toilet was of a poor standard.
4. Seals round the windows at the back of the house needed replacing.
5. The ceiling in her bedroom and one of her children’s bedrooms had started to crack. The was damp in one of the bedrooms after a leak. Her bedroom door did not fit over her new carpet.
6. The front door needed repairing.
7. The lean-to at the back of the house was leaking badly.
8. One of the landlord’s operatives had broken a table and had dropped plaster on her carpet when repairs were carried out to the property in May 2022.
The landlord responded to the resident on 15 February 2023. It said:
1. It would raise an order to inspect her heating including the heater in the bathroom. It said it would check and fill the insulation in the resident’s loft. It would also overhaul the windows and fit energy efficient lightbulbs at the property.
2. It was the resident’s responsibility to replace locks on the bathroom door and repair the damage done to the door. It said the resident was responsible for remedying the cracks in the bedroom ceiling as these came under internal decoration. It was also her responsibility to adjust the bedroom door after fitting a new carpet as the landlord would only fit doors to allow for the existing flooring. The lean-to was not part of the property and was not habitable and therefore this was also the resident’s responsibility to maintain.
3. The sink in the downstairs toilet was not damaged and was in good working order so it would not replace it.
4. It would raise an order to fit new window seals. It would investigate the leak in the bedroom and would inspect the front door.
5. The resident should have complained about the broken table and plaster on the carpet at the time of these incidents happening.
On 15 February 2023, the resident submitted a complaint. She said:
1. The landlord had said it would do something about the heating previously but had not done anything.
2. The landlord did not repair the ceilings when it was supposed to after previous work at the property.
3. The lean-to was part of the property and all the houses on the street had lean-tos like it.
4. The plastering in the property was poor.
5. She had told the landlord that she would be having new carpet fitted in the bedroom and it should have taken this into account when fitting the new door.
6. She had not mentioned the broken table and plaster on the carpet at the time as she did not want to get the landlord’s operative into trouble.
On 20 February 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to book an appointment for its contractor to inspect her heating on 2 March 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 22 February 2023. It said:
1. It would obtain quotes to install new heating in her home and would inspect the bathroom heater.
2. It would make good the plastering in the downstairs toilet.
3. It did not have records showing that it had carried out any plastering in the hallway, therefore this was the resident’s responsibility to rectify.
4. It reiterated that:
  1. It would fit new sealing around her windows.
  2. It was the resident’s responsibility to fit a bathroom door lock and repair the damaged bathroom door. The cracks in the bedroom ceilings were part of the internal decoration of the property and were therefore the resident’s responsibility. It was the resident’s responsibility to adjust the bedroom door as she had had a new carpet fitted in that room.
  3. It would not replace her toilet sink as it was in good working order.
  4. It would investigate the stain in the bedroom where there had been a leak.
  5. It would inspect her front door as the resident had said that water came in when it rained.
  6. It was not responsible for repairs to the lean-to as there were no records showing that this had been erected by the landlord.
  7. It would check and fill the insulation in the loft and fit energy efficient bulbs.
On 23 February 2023 the resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its procedure. She said she would prefer air source heating rather than storage heaters. She said the bathroom door should have a lock that could be opened from outside, and that the landlord had previously agreed to fit this. Someone working for the landlord had told her that sinks should be replaced every 10 years. She believed that the lean-to had been put up when the house was built as all the houses in the area had the same lean-tos. The landlord had done the plastering in the hall but had not done a good job.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 14 March 2023. It said it had found evidence of the lean-to on the floorplans for the property. It had also found records of it having carried out previous repairs to the lean-to. It agreed with the resident that all the properties in the area had similar lean-tos. It said it would investigate the leak in the lean-to the resident had reported to it.
On 16 April 2023, the resident complained to the Ombudsman. She said she believed the landlord to be falsifying documents. She said it had replaced the downstairs toilet but not the downstairs sink. It had replastered the hallway but said it had no records for this. The landlord’s operative had broken a table and dropped plaster on her carpet.
The landlord told the Ombudsman that it believed that the previous tenant had carried out the plastering in the hallway. It confirmed to the Ombudsman that it carried out the following repairs to the property:
1. Work to install new heaters had originally been scheduled for 20 April 2023; however, this was delayed after the landlord’s contractor complained about the resident’s behaviour. The resident apologised and on 23 May 2023, the contractors completed the installation of new heaters.
2. On 8 June 2023, the new heater in the bathroom was removed at the resident’s request and a heated towel rail was installed instead.
3. On 9 June 2023, the landlord painted the hallway, using paint supplied by the resident.
4. The toilet wall was made good on 13 June 2023.
5. A job to fit a new lean-to roof was initially booked for 17 April 2023, however the landlord needed to speak to the resident before proceeding with the work. The lean-to roof was replaced on 15 June 2023.
6. On 17 July 2023, damage to the wall caused during electrical work was made good.
7. Seals were fitted to the front door on 26 May 2023. The door leaked again however and was repaired on 22 November 2023.
8. The window seals were replaced on 4 December 2023.
On 13 May 2024, the resident told the Service that the landlord had inspected the damp in the bedroom, but it had not carried out any treatment to remedy it.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

The resident said that the landlord’s operative had broken a table and dripped plaster onto her carpet when carrying out repairs in May 2022. There is no indication that the resident made a formal complaint about this at the time however (the Ombudsman would usually expect such issues to be brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within 6 months of the matters arising). The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. Therefore, the Ombudsman will not make a finding on this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
The resident has mentioned in her complaint that the health of one of her children was affected by a lack of adequate heating in the property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her child’s health. We appreciate that this would have been a difficult time for the family. However, it is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to consider whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and her child’s health. Such matters are better suited to a court or liability insurer to determine. The Service can consider any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her child’s health.

Policies and procedures

Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the property including, internal walls and ceilings, doors, plasterwork, and integral stores. It also has responsibility for maintaining heaters and sanitary ware such as basins. The tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for the interior decoration of the property and for making good any damage they have caused.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will respond to routine repairs within 28 days of the issue being reported to it.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs

The landlord acted appropriately in carrying out an inspection of the resident’s heating and agreeing to install new heaters. It acted in line with its timescales for carrying out routine repairs in booking an appointment to inspect the resident’s heating on 3 March 2023 and in seeking quotes to replace all the heaters in the resident’s home. As noted above, the work to carry out the installation was delayed when the contractor complained about the resident’s behaviour. The landlord acted appropriately in visiting the resident and once the resident had apologised, arranging for work to restart.
It is understandable that the resident would have been extremely concerned when one of her children locked themselves in the bathroom and she had to make a hole in the door to unlock it. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident reported any faults with the bathroom lock prior to her child locking themselves in the bathroom. Therefore, the landlord was right to advise it was not responsible for repairing the door or providing a new lock as these were the resident’s responsibilities under her tenancy agreement.
The resident said the landlord had carried out replastering in the hall after its visit to the property in May 2022 and had done a poor job. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it had no records showing that it had carried out this work and therefore it was the resident’s responsibility to rectify. The landlord told the Ombudsman that the plastering may have been done by the previous tenant and therefore it was not its responsibility to make good. Where there is a disputed version of events without evidence to support either account, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine what did or did not happen. However, there is evidence to show that the landlord had previously agreed to make good the plastering in the lounge that it said had been carried out by the previous tenant. It is acknowledged that the landlord has repainted the hallway, however it would be reasonable for it to consider replastering the wall in the hallway if this has not been done to a good standard. It is recommended that the landlord inspect the hallway wall and if the plastering is not of a good standard, to consider carrying out replastering to the wall in question.
The landlord acted reasonably in advising the resident that she had not reported any faults with the basin in the cloakroom and as the basin was in good working order, it would not agree to replace it. This was an appropriate response as there is no obligation for the landlord to repair or replace parts of the property that are not in disrepair. The Ombudsman has not disregarded the resident’s comment that a member of the landlord’s staff had previously said the sink should be replaced. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm this was said and if it was said, this would not in itself mean the landlord would be obliged to replace the sink.
It was right that the landlord informed the resident that its responsibility was to make sure that the bedroom door was adjusted to fit over the existing flooring in the bedroom. It was understandable that the resident decided to fit new carpet in the bedroom. However, this was her choice, and the landlord had no obligation to adjust the door prior to the new carpet being fitted nor to adjust it after the fitting of the carpet.
The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that the landlord inspected the damp in one of the bedrooms, however she said it has not carried out any treatment. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the landlord’s inspection report in relation to the damp, nor has it seen any records to show what treatment was necessary, if any. The Ombudsman would expect to see a report setting out what was causing the damp and a summary of any actions needed to remedy any identified issues. The landlord is ordered to re-inspect the damp in the bedroom and carry-out any necessary repairs if appropriate.
The landlord said that the cracks in the ceiling in the bedrooms reported by the resident fell under interior decoration and were therefore the resident’s responsibility to repair. It is correct to say that cosmetic decorative issues are the resident’s responsibility to resolve. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord inspected these cracks to satisfy itself that these were a cosmetic rather than a structural issue. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to inspect the cracks in the bedroom ceilings and provide the Ombudsman with a copy of its inspection report. Should the issue prove to be structural, the landlord is ordered to carry-out any necessary repairs.
It was right that the landlord further investigated whether it had a responsibility to repair the lean-to at the property following the resident’s stage 2 complaint that all the properties in the area had similar lean-tos. It is accepted that it will have been frustrating for the resident that she had to raise the issue again. However, the fact that the landlord looked into the matter in more detail, showed willingness to acknowledge and correct mistakes where it had got things wrong. It acted in line with its repairs policy that states that repairs to outhouses were its responsibility, in agreeing to inspect the leak in the lean-to. The landlord acted within its timescales for completing routine repairs in booking in repairs to the lean-to roof for 17 April 2023. The work was delayed as the landlord needed to speak to the resident about her behaviour. This delay was outside of the landlord’s control, therefore and as noted above, the work was completed on 15 June 2023, which was a reasonable timeframe under the circumstances.
The landlord acted appropriately in agreeing to repair the front door, make good the plastering on the toilet wall and replace the window seals. However, these repairs were not completed within the landlord’s timescale of 28 days for attending to routine repairs. The resident reported the front door, the window seals, and the plastering in the toilet on 9 February 2023. The first repair to the door did not take place until 26 May 2023, the plastering to the toilet wall did not take place until 13 June 2023 and the window seals were not replaced until 4 December 2023. These delays will have caused the resident time, trouble, and inconvenience as she was left waiting for repairs to her home for longer than she should have been.
The resident complained that a lack of adequate heating in the property affected the health of one of her children. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to look at whether it could take any steps to support the resident and/or refer her to other agencies who may be able to provide support. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to advise her that she could pursue a personal injury claim with its liability insurer should she wish to do so for damage to her child’s health. The landlord should pass on its insurer’s details to the resident now so she can make a claim if she wants to. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on the outcome or handling of insurance claims and therefore we could not comment on the actions of the landlord’s liability insurer if a claim is made to it.
Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s property for the reasons set out above. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, published on our website, sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance states that where maladministration has been identified which adversely affected the resident, £100-£600 compensation should be considered. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation for its failings in its handling of the repairs to her property.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that the Ombudsman is provided with evidence of compliance by the same date:
1. Pay the resident £250 compensation.
2. Inspect the cracks in the bedroom ceilings to determine if these are structural and if so carry-out any necessary repairs.
3. Re-inspect the damp in the bedroom and carry-out repairs to remedy the issue if appropriate.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Inspect the hallway wall and if the plastering is not of a good standard, to consider replastering the hallway wall in question.
2. Pass on its liability insurer’s details to the resident so she can make a claim in relation to her child’s health if she wants to.