Tower Hamlets Homes (202200653)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200653

Tower Hamlets Homes

18 August 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 response to the resident’s request for her front door to be replaced and her request for compensation.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. The evidence suggests that the resident initially raised concerns about her front door in January 2021. The landlord was only completing emergency works at this time as a result of Covid-19. An appointment to replace the resident’s front door was arranged for June 2021 once Covid-19 restrictions had lifted, however, could not be completed as the replacement door had been damaged in transit. A further appointment was arranged for 18 August 2021.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 18 August 2021 as she was due to have the door replaced that day but was not satisfied with the type of door supplied by the landlord and refused the replacement. She explained that the door provided was timber and had a window which could be easily broken or seen through. She wanted the door to be replaced with one similar to those recently installed in a building opposite hers. She later requested that the landlord offer compensation for the time and trouble she had spent pursuing the matter so that she could complete the work herself if the landlord was not able to fit a different door.
5. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that it had confirmed with the resident that the door was secure. It confirmed that it was not able to fit composite wooden front doors due to fire safety reasons and was only able to install timber fire-retardant doors, which were the type fitted in all properties within the resident’s block. It further explained that the doors to the building opposite were replaced as part of a major works programme by a different contractor and the resident’s property was not currently part of this programme. It confirmed that it would be willing to replace door with timber fire-retardant door or carry out repairs in line with its obligations. It advised that it did not feel compensation was warranted as there had been no service failure.
6. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied that an operative had found no fault with the door despite it visibly falling apart. She was dissatisfied with the type of door proposed by the landlord and that the landlord had refused her request for compensation so that she could do the repair herself. She added that she felt discriminated against by the landlord due to her race and felt that there had been misconduct in the way it treated vulnerable tenants.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. In her communication with this Service, the resident has advised that she believes that she has been discriminated against due to her race. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal term which is better suited to a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns and any overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s actions.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for her front door to be replaced and her request for compensation.

8. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the external front door in the resident’s property. It confirms that emergency repairs, for example making secure external doors, should be completed within 24 hours. Routine repairs, including repairing door furniture where there is no security risk, should be completed within 20 working days. Certain works which require items to be manufactured like doors and windows may take longer to complete. The landlord would be responsible for keeping residents updated on the progress of such works.
9. In this case, it is not disputed that the resident’s front door was secure and there was no immediate security risk to the resident. The resident remains dissatisfied that no fault had been found with the door other than that it would ‘stick’ when opened. She maintains that the door was visibly falling apart and wanted it to be replaced with a composite door rather than the fire-retardant timber door offered by the landlord.
10. While the resident’s concerns are noted, the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff and contractors who determined that the current door was structurally sound. Despite this, the landlord agreed to replace the door which was reasonable given the resident’s concerns. Landlords are usually expected to complete repairs in the first instance and only consider replacing items such as doors where they are beyond economical repair and it would be more cost-effective to carry out a replacement. In this case there is no evidence to suggest that the door was beyond economical repair and the landlord acted above its obligations by agreeing to replace it.
11. In addition, social landlords have limited resources and to be fair to all tenants and manage its resources effectively, landlords are expected to schedule upgrades and major repairs for items such as external doors, kitchens and bathrooms. It is often more economical to run these upgrades as part of a programme than to individually pick properties to be upgraded on an ad-hoc basis. The landlord would not be expected to replace the resident’s door outside of its planned schedule unless it was beyond economic repair, but acted reasonably by offering to do so in this case.
12. Regarding the type of door, the landlord has overall responsibility of the front door and was entitled to use materials it saw fit. While the resident’s concerns about the type of door offered are understandable, there is no evidence to suggest that the fire-retardant timber door would be unsuitable or unsafe. The landlord reasonably explained that the doors to the building opposite had been upgraded as part of a planned works programme which the resident’s block was not part of. As above, it was likely to be more cost-effective to provide a different type of door as part of a planned programme of works and the landlord would not be obliged to provide the same type of door to the resident outside of this programme.
13. The resident raised concerns about the single glazed window on the door and the landlord acted appropriately by confirming that it could also provide a timber door without a window which the resident refused. External doors need to meet fire-safety regulations and the landlord would need to ensure that the correct type of door was fitted to act in accordance with these. It was reasonable for the landlord to refuse to offer compensation so that the resident could complete the work herself as it was under no obligation to do so, and it would need to ensure that all doors met regulations.
14. It is noted that the resident also requested compensation for the time and trouble she had spent pursuing the matter. While it is noted that there was some delay in arranging the replacement of the door, this was initially because the landlord was only completing emergency repairs in line with Government guidance as a result of Covid-19 restrictions and any delay as a result of this was outside of its control. There was a slight delay in arranging the door replacement once restrictions had been lifted as the replacement door had been damaged in transit which again was outside of the landlord’s control. The landlord took steps to arrange a further appointment within a reasonable timeframe given the need to manufacture a new door. Ultimately any delay was unlikely to have changed the outcome of the complaint as the resident had refused the replacement door once it was provided.
15. The landlord took reasonable steps to meet its obligations to the resident by offering to repair her existing door or replace it with a fire-retardant timber door which met fire safety regulations. There is no evidence that the landlord acted unreasonably in its handling of the matter.

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for her front door to be replaced and her request for compensation.