Two Rivers Housing (202127014)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127014

Two Rivers Housing

11 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 regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. request for a replacement door;
    2. reports of heating issues in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident completed a mutual exchange on 19 July 2021. The resident’s partner who also resides at the property is affected by a mobility disability.
  2. On 7 January 2021, while a previous occupant was in occupation at the property, the landlord visited the property to inspect an external door. The door went from the kitchen to an outhouse attached to the property. The previous tenant reported a draught from the door. The landlord’s contractor stated that “everything that could be done to door has been done, but it is in desperate need of replacing.” The replacement door was needed due to the door being over thirty years old and only having single glazed glass. The contractor recommended a replacement UPVC door be installed “as soon as possible.” In an internal email from the same date, the landlord stated that due to the door being included in upcoming planned maintenance, it could remain in its current condition.
  3. The resident completed a mutual exchange and moved into the property on or around 19 July 2021.
  4. On 22 November 2021, the resident raise a complaint regarding issues with the external door and his difficulty chasing repairs. The resident advised that he had been provided with inconsistent information throughout the process. The resident also advised that the property was cold, which in turn, was affecting his partner’s mobility disability. The resident further advised that he just wanted the repairs to be completed, so the property could be warm.
  5. On 24 November 2021, the landlord’s internal emails indicate that it considered the door replacement would need to wait for planned maintenance works. It also noted that any health conditions “would not sway a decision” to replace the door.
  6. On 1 December 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response. It advised that upon reviewing the case it found that the resident was informed that the door would need to be replaced and an order was submitted. However, the landlord found that this order had been subsequently cancelled in error. It was then decided that the door would be replaced during the 2022/2023 renewal programme. However, following a further inspection on 23 November 2021, it was decided that the door needed to be replaced immediately and work had begun to obtain a quote from the landlord’s contractor. The landlord also confirmed that it was arranging works for the outhouse ceiling to be repaired and two radiators to be replaced in the hallway and living room in an attempt to make the property warmer.
  7. Following the resident’s request for an escalation, on 25 February 2022 the landlord issued its stage two response. It advised that the external door had been ordered, but it was awaiting a delivery date from the supplier. In regards to the heating in the kitchen, the landlord advised that due to physical constraints a radiator could not be installed. It further advised that it was waiting for an assessment to be completed on the property by a specialist heating contractor to establish what else can be done in the property as the larger radiators were not sufficient. In regards to the window replacements, it advised that a scheduled planned maintenance programme for April 2022 to August 2022 would address this.
  8. On 15 March 2022, the resident referred this matter to this service. The resident stated that he was still experiencing cold in the property. The resident considered that the landlord had failed to replace the door in a reasonable or acceptable timeframe. As a resolution, the resident is seeking compensation as he considered that if the work was carried out prior to the winter period, the cold would not have affected the property as much.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has stated that the cold in the property has caused health concerns, for which the resident sought medical attention. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about his partner’s health; however, it is beyond the expertise of this service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and the deterioration of the resident’s wellbeing. Similarly, it is beyond the expertise of this service to determine that the landlord’s actions (or lack of) had an impact on the resident’s employment. Such a determination is more appropriate for the courts. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice should be sought. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and his partner.

Policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy handbook states that routine repairs are repairs that are not in need of urgent attention and do not pose a risk to the resident’s home or families. These repairs will be completed within twenty working days.

Replacement door

  1. The government’s Decent Homes Standard requires that a landlord should consider whether the property in a reasonable state of repair. Properties are not considered to be in a reasonable state of repair where “one or more of the ‘key’ building components are old and, because of their condition, need replacing or major repair.” A key building component includes external doors.
  2. The Decent Home Standard also states that the lifetime of an external door for a house or bungalow would be forty years. In the evidence provided to this service, it is evident that the external door either is, or is near to being forty years old. It is also not disputed that the door requires replacing. Therefore, the property would not be considered to be decent under the Decent Home Standard, as the property was not in a reasonable state of repair.
  3. The landlord’s internal communication indicates its initial intention was to delay the replacement of the door until planned maintenance in 2022/2023. Whilst in certain circumstances waiting for planned maintenance is acceptable, in this instance, due to the resident’s partner’s health conditions and susceptibility to the cold, the landlord should have specifically considered how this would impact the resident’s partner and clearly set out its position why a delay was still appropriate in light of this consideration, which it did not do.
  4. The comments made on 24 November 2021 by the landlord that “health conditions would not sway the decision” to replace the door sooner were not in-line with good practice. Health conditions can mean that residents cannot and should not have to wait until planned maintenance, especially if the delay results in a detrimental effect on a resident. Therefore, the landlord did not act in-line with good practice.
  5. In its stage one response, the landlord noted that the resident had initially reported the issue on 31 August 2021. The landlord then advised the resident that the door would be replaced, however, the order to replace the door was subsequently cancelled. The landlord had then decided to delay the works until the next programme of planned maintenance. Having raised the resident’s expectations that the door would be replaced, it is not evident that the landlord informed the resident of its decision to delay the replacement. This would have caused distress for the resident and led him to expend time and trouble in chasing the repairs.
  6. Following its inspection in November 2021, the landlord agreed that the door should be replaced outside of its planned maintenance programme and began the process of obtaining quotes. It appropriately kept the resident informed of this step in its stage one response.
  7. The tenancy handbook states that the repair should be completed within twenty working days. The Ombudsman understands, however, that these timeframes are only indicative, and reasonable delays can occur, such as the need to obtain quotes and fabricate parts. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to keep the resident informed of any delays.
  8. Once it became apparent that the replacement of the door would extend beyond the twenty working day period noted in the tenancy handbook, it is not evident that the landlord provided any further update to the resident until its stage two response in February 2022. This once again would have left the resident distressed and unclear when the matter would be resolved.
  9. In summary, the landlord’s initial decision to delay the replacement of the door until its planned programme of repairs was reasonable, given that it was unaware it would have a detrimental effect on the resident at this time. Following the resident’s reports, however, it raised his expectations that the door would be replaced as a routine repair, only to cancel the repair without advising him. It is also evident that the landlord failed to appropriately consider the impact a further delay would have on the health of the resident’s partner. Additionally, having agreed to replace the door, it failed to keep the resident informed about ongoing delays in ordering the door. This amounted to maladministration, for which compensation is appropriate.
  10. While the Ombudsman notes that the landlord has previously offered £100 compensation, in the circumstances, this offer is insufficient to remedy the detriment caused to the resident. Given the length of the delays and the impact on the resident and his partner, an amount of £300 compensation is appropriate to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which notes compensation of £250 to £700 may be ordered for cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant.

Heating issues

  1. Since moving into the property, it has been identified that the previous resident had altered the property by reconfiguring the kitchen. The resident moved into the property as a result of a mutual exchange, however, and therefore accepted the property as seen upon viewing.
  2. Following the heating specialist visiting the property, it was identified that the only heater that could be installed in the kitchen area would be a ‘downward flow’ heater. This was due to the kitchen reconfiguration not allowing for a radiator to connect to the boiler piping. The heating specialist’s report advised that this heater would be “very costly and would need to be on all day.”
  3. The report also stated that the resident “did not want” the downward flow heater. Whilst this service can understand the resident’s concerns about having a downward flow heater, the landlord has offered a resolution to the heating concerns by installing larger radiators in the dining room, living room and hallway, in an attempt to heat the property sufficiently. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has made a reasonable attempt to try and resolve the heating issues for the resident in an alternative way.
  4. The resident requested that the landlord return the kitchen to its original configuration to facilitate the installation of a radiator. However, the landlord would not be obliged to complete this work, as the resident accepted the property as viewed during the mutual exchange. Therefore, the landlord was reasonable in denying the request for the kitchen to be returned to its original state. The landlord did, however, act in-line with good practice by informing the resident that he could return the kitchen to its original state as a cost to himself. This was a reasonable response from the landlord and was in line with its obligations.
  5. Given the health conditions of the resident’s partner, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have considered assisting the resident to obtain an Occupational Therapist’s (OT) report in relation to the impact the lack of heating in the kitchen had on their health. A recommendation has been made below that the landlord offer the resident assistance with this process, should they wish.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its response to the resident’s request for a replacement door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding its response to the reported heating issues in the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £300 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delay in replacing the external door.
  2. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £100. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and offer assistance in arranging for an OT report regarding the heating in the kitchen.