Yorkshire Housing Limited (202123772)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123772

Yorkshire Housing Limited

11 July 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 reports about:

1. Painting works to the exterior of the property.
2. A roof leak.
3. Garden works.
4. The height of his kitchen unit.

Background

2. This investigation has considered a number of issues that have each progressed through their own separate and independent landlord complaint process. The resident raised additional issues with this Service. However, there is no evidence that these additional issues have progressed through the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP), and therefore have not been investigated.
3. On 5 August 2021, the resident, a secure tenant of the landlord, complained to the landlord that contractors had done an unsatisfactory job of painting the exterior of the property. The landlord responded to the complaint on 15 September 2021. It apologised for the upset caused and said that it would visit on 22 September 2021 to inspect. The landlord then said that the work had been completed to a satisfactory standard. The resident requested escalation of his complaint and the landlord agreed to send a different contractor to fix the issue and paint the exterior. The landlord also confirmed that its surveyor would post-inspect the work to ensure it was done to a good standard.
4. The resident did not respond to the initial appointment date for the painting works, with two further attempts by the landlord to schedule an appointment and complete the works also unsuccessful due to the resident not being present. Following the second of these attempts, the landlord closed the complaint (28 February 2022).
5. The resident submitted a further formal complaint, during or shortly before November 2021, about issues relating to works to his back garden. The landlord gave its formal response on 10 November 2021, in which it advised that it had instructed its contractor to book an appointment with the resident to complete the agreed work. However, the landlord denied the resident’s request for additional flagstones to be laid in the garden as it said this would amount to an improvement. The landlord’s final response was issued on 21 December 2021, in which it confirmed that the contractor was scheduled to complete the work on 13 January 2022. It apologised for the delay in completing the work, reiterated that the flagging was suitable for access and again refused the resident’s request for additional flagging.
6. In November 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint regarding a leak that was coming from the roof. The landlord’s contractor was scheduled to attend on 19 November, but due to an administrative error on the part of the landlord, the appointment was missed. On 3 December 2021, the landlord gave its formal response to the complaint. It apologised for any inconvenience caused and confirmed that the contractor had attended again on 22 November and had identified that the cause of the leak was from a neighbouring property. The landlord also confirmed that its contractor had carried out a temporary repair on the same date and that it had written to the neighbour in order to ensure they resolved the leak.
7. The landlord gave its final response on 28 February 2022. It confirmed that it had contacted the neighbour regarding the repair and acknowledged that it should have identified sooner whether the property was lived in by the owner or rented. It also confirmed that it had served the owner of the property a notice on 10 Feb with a deadline day of 25 Feb to resolve the repair issue. The landlord also confirmed that the majority of work had been finalised by the neighbour.
8. The resident also raised an issue about the height of his kitchen units following work that had been done to his kitchen. However, as the work to the kitchen units had been carried out three years prior, and the resident had not raised the issue at that time, the landlord did not accept the complaint as it had been more than 6 months since the issue had risen.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

9. The landlord’s Policy Document states that routine repairs are ‘to be completed within 28 calendar days of reporting. AM/PM appointment offered to the customer at the time of reporting’.
10. The landlord’s Policy Document also states that ‘External works will not always be appointed at the time of reporting, unless access needs to be arranged’.
11. The landlord’s Policy Document states that it is responsible for ‘the structure and exterior of the building – roof walls…’

Jurisdiction and scope of investigation

12. Following work to his kitchen, the resident raised an issue regarding the height of his kitchen units. However, the units had been installed three years prior and as such, the landlord informed the resident on 8 February 2022 that it would not be responding to the issue as he had not raised his concerns at the time. Under Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
13. The resident contacted this Service on 10 March 2022 to advise of several issues regarding his property. However, several of the issues brought to this Service had not been formally raised and investigated as part of the landlord’s internal complaints processes. These issues included; damp kitchen wall with paint coming off, wrong tiles and flooring fitted in bathroom, broken bedroom-window lock, broken living-room radiator, a leaking bath, and cracks in walls. This Service will only investigate issues that have exhausted the landlord’s ICP, as the primary role of the Ombudsman is to investigate a landlord’s response to issues that remain unresolved following their formal response. Therefore, to investigate a complaint, it is important that it has been brought formally to the landlord, and that the landlords has had reasonable time and opportunity to investigate the complaint through its ICP.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the handling of painting works to the exterior of the property

14. The resident raised a formal complaint (August/September 2021) regarding the standard of exterior painting that had been completed on his property. He explained that it was the landlord’s third attempt at painting the property and that a member of the landlord’s staff had attended with the contactor to ensure the work was done correctly. The resident noted (in his stage two escalation request, 27 September 2021) that although a member of the landlord’s staff had attended, he felt that nothing had been done. The resident also said that he did not want the same painter to return to carry out any further work as he had overheard him saying, ‘I’ll be done soon because I’m getting sick of it’.
15. Whilst it is not this Service’s role to investigate personnel issues, the Ombudsman will investigate how the landlord has responded to a resident’s reports of poor conduct from one of its staff members, or contractors, of whom the landlord is ultimately responsible for. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction in its final response (25 October 2021) and confirmed that it was arranging for the contractor to attend the property, and that it had asked the contractor to send a different painter.
16. The landlord’s acknowledgement of the resident’s concern regarding the contractor, and its subsequent request for a different painter to attend the property was a reasonable step to take under the circumstances, as it is important for a landlord to ensure that a resident’s views have been taken into account. By letting the resident know that it had taken his concerns on board, and that it had taken this issue up with its contractor, it demonstrated to the resident that it had taken the concern seriously and was committed to doing what it could to resolve the substantive issue and improve the landlord/tenant relationship.
17. In its stage one response (15 September 2021), the landlord confirmed that it would send an agent to inspect the paint work. It said that it would attend on 22 September 2021 to this end. Following this inspection, the landlord said in an internal email dated 24 September 2021, that it believed the standard of painting was acceptable, and that it had asked a professional painter for their opinion, who agreed that the painting was to an acceptable standard.
18. It is reasonable for the landlord to make decisions based on the advice and expertise of professionals, and it would not be expected to make decisions that contradicted this advice. Although the resident believed the work was not to the required standard, the landlord had taken reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports about the standard of the works. Additionally, an internal call on 29 September explained that photos of the work had been checked by multiple staff members, whom all agreed that the work was an acceptable standard.
19. Given that it was not disputed that this was the third attempt at painting the exterior of the property, it would be expected that the landlord would go to such lengths to ensure that the work was sufficient. It was also mentioned by a member of the landlord’s staff (in the internal 29 September call), that the initial attempt at painting the exterior was ‘terrible’. Therefore, by sending a member of the landlord’s staff to supervise the contractor whilst applying the paint, the landlord showed to the resident that it was committed to ensuring that the work was completed properly. Also, by showing the work to multiple staff members, and seeking an expert opinion, the landlord went to reasonable lengths to commit to finishing the work to a good standard.
20. As mentioned earlier, the landlord confirmed in its final response that it was arranging for the contractor to attend with a different painter to re-do the work. The landlord also said that its surveyor would post-inspect the work to ensure that it was done to a good standard. Given that the work had already been deemed to have been a good standard by its staff and the opinion of an expert, there was no evidence to suggest that the landlord was obliged to offer this final re-paint. By doing so, it shows that the landlord had exercised reasonable discretion, and was going above and beyond in order to satisfy the resident.
21. The landlord advised the resident that he needed to be present during the appointment, and gave him two phone numbers that he could contact if he knew he would not be in. An appointment was booked for 3 November 2021, but after leaving a voicemail, and several attempts at calling, the appointment was rearranged due to not having confirmation from the resident that he would be present. The landlord sent a letter on 3 November 2021, and confirmed that a new appointment had been booked for 11 November 2021. The appointment was again re-arranged to 16 February 2022 to suit the resident’s availability. The landlord and contractor attended at the agreed time but the resident was not present, and therefore the landlord decided that the work remained at a satisfactory standard and closed the complaint.
22. Given that the landlord had exercised its discretion to commit to re-painting the property, and that it had stressed the importance of the resident being present during the appointment, it was reasonable for the landlord to close the complaint after several failed attempts to carry out the work. The landlord also exceeded its expectations by requesting that the resident was present in order to offer him the opportunity to supervise the work himself. The resident had been given two numbers to contact if he was not going to be present, and he had also been given sufficient notice of the appointment Therefore, the landlord could not have done more to try to ensure that the resident would be present and satisfied with the work.
23. As well as offering for the resident to be present and oversee the painting of the property, the landlord, in its final response, advised that it would be working with its group of ‘engaged customers to review all aspects of [its] contractor repair services’. It advised that this project would ‘give customers an opportunity to have their say in what should be improved’. The landlord offered the resident the opportunity to join this group.
24. This offer to the resident, and its attempt to go above and beyond its obligations in order to satisfy the resident, showed that the landlord had attempted to resolve the resident’s concerns, and therefore no maladministration has been identified here with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the exterior painting.
25. The landlord has the discretion to re-visit its previous offer, and make a further attempt to re-paint the area a final time, as it had already indicated to the resident that this was something it was willing to do. However, it must be made clear that the landlord is not obliged to do this, having already exceeded its repair obligations.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a roof leak

26. In November 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint regarding a missed appointment to investigate a roof leak. The contractor had advised that the resident did not need to be present to allow access. However, upon arrival (19 November 2021), the contractor found that it did need the resident to be present, and, as the resident was not at the property at the time, the contractors could not gain access and therefore the appointment did not proceed. Resultingly, the appointment was rearranged for 23 November 2021.
27. The incorrect information that was given to the resident had caused an unnecessary delay in the leak being investigated and the work being carried out. However, although there had been a delay, the landlord acted promptly in resolving it by re-scheduling the appointment for two days later. The landlord apologised for the delay in its formal response (3 December 2021) and advised that it had discussed this with the contractor, reminding them of the importance of correct information. The landlord also advised that this was acknowledged by the contractor and that it had given feedback to relevant staff.
28. The landlord is ultimately responsible for the actions of its contractors, and therefore it is commendable that the landlord apologised for the failure, addressed it, and raised the issue with its contractor. Its confirmation that it had reiterated the importance of correct information to its contractor was promising as it showed that the landlord recognised the importance of maintaining a good level of service regarding repairs.
29. Additionally, by informing the resident that both the landlord and its contractor had taken the failure onboard and learnt from it, it conveys to the resident a sense of responsibility and awareness regarding its failure. It is more likely to increase the trust between the landlord and the resident, by ensuring that it had learnt from the issue, and that it had taken steps to prevent the issue re-occurring. It is also in line with this Service’s dispute resolution principles as it shows the landlord’s dedication to learning from the outcomes of complaints.
30. On 22 November, during the contractor’s visit, it was identified that the cause of the leak was due to ‘unsatisfactory work’ that had been carried out on the neighbouring roof. In its final response (28 February 2022), the landlord confirmed that it had made a temporary fix to the resident’s roof. This would be expected, as even though the main repair was not the responsibility of the landlord (due to it being sourced to the neighbour’s property), the landlord would be expected to assist the resident to the best of its ability and act in accordance with its own repair/maintenance obligations by taking appropriate steps to ensure that the resident could live in his property without the presence of the leak. The landlord attempted to achieve this by installing a temporary fix, and by writing to the neighbouring property to inform of the issue, and to ask the neighbour to carry out its own repair in a ‘timely manner’.
31. Although the landlord wrote to the neighbouring property, further delay was caused as the landlord failed to identify the owner of the property. The landlord recognised (as confirmed in its final response) that it should have identified whether the property was lived in by the owner or rented at an earlier point as doing so would have resulted in the responsible person being made aware of their need to act that much sooner. Whilst the landlord had failed to do this in the first instance, it is promising that the landlord recognised this. The landlord also showed that once it was aware of this mistake, it had taken a proactive stance in addressing it.
32. The landlord stated that it had identified the owner of the property and had served a notice on 10 February 2022 with a deadline day of 25 February 2022. It advised that it had received no response from the owner and therefore would pursue the owner and ‘take action to complete the repair or carry out enforcement action to complete the repair’. The landlord has since confirmed that the roof had been re-done aside from a ‘valley’ being installed. The landlord stated that its surveyor was currently in contact with the neighbour to resolve the issue.
33. The landlord took appropriate and reasonable action following its recognition that it had not identified the owner. The initial delay resulted from the contractor’s failure to provide correct information to the resident in regard to whether or not he needed to be present to allow access. However, this was quickly remedied by the landlord by re-arranging the appointment in the following days. The other cause for delay was the landlord’s initial failure to identify the owner of the neighbouring property, and serve them with a notice to remedy the faulty work.
34. Although there was a delay, the landlord identified its mistake and pursued the owner quickly and efficiently in order to ensure that the repair was conducted. Additionally, although there was a delay, the landlord had installed a temporary fix to the resident’s property. There is no evidence to suggest that this fix was inadequate and that it had caused the resident to continue to live with a leak in the property. As such, the Ombudsman is satisfied with the landlord’s response to this issue, reflected in the finding of no maladministration detailed below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about garden works

35. In November 2021, the resident raised a complaint regarding work that was due to be carried out on his back garden. The resident advised that the contractor had arrived with different work details to the work that had been agreed with the landlord. In a phone call with the resident (date not specified), the landlord’s surveyor confirmed that the work that was on the contractor’s job-sheet was not the same as the work that had been raised by the landlord, and that the contractors had arrived with the wrong job details in mind. The landlord advised the resident to raise a complaint about the issue.
36. The landlord’s notes state that it had been agreed with the resident, to place a new step at the back gate, lift and re-lay flagging stones from the gate ‘to the dog kennel’, and to ‘fill the corner gap’. However, the landlord’s notes also confirm that the contractor’s order stated only to remove the stone at the back gate, lay slabs up to the stone and fill the corner gap. This would have left outstanding work, work that had been agreed between the landlord and the resident during a surveyor’s visit on 6 November 2021.
37. The landlord failed to ensure that the contractor arrived at the property with the correct directions to carry out the work that was previously agreed with the resident. There was a clear error in the communication process for the contractor to have misinterpreted the work that had been raised. Ultimately, it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that contractors have the correct information to carry out the work that had been agreed. If the communication error was on the side of the contractor, the responsibility still lies with the landlord, as the landlord is the one who oversees the repair of its properties.
38. The failure to ensure that the contractor arrived to carry out the agreed work led to an unnecessary delay in the work being completed. No work was done on the date of the initial appointment and therefore the work had to be re-booked, causing a longer wait for the resident. In its formal response (10 November 2021), the landlord advised that it had instructed the contractor to contact the resident in order to arrange an appointment to carry out the agreed work. It also did not dispute that the contractor had arrived with the incorrect work details as opposed to the work that had been raised by the landlord and agreed with the resident. From the evidence provided, there is no indication that the contractor informed the resident of the date that the new appointment was scheduled for. The resident requested escalation of his complaint (no date provided) and stated that he wanted the work to be completed.
39. The landlord gave its final response on 21 December 2021. It apologised for the delay in carrying out the work and advised that the contractor was scheduled to attend the property and complete the work on 13 January 2021. Due to the landlord having not provided any repair logs or contractor notes, this Service was unable to verify that the agreed work had been completed, however there was no further correspondence regarding the issue, and the resident had not raised anything to say that the work was still outstanding.
40. The resident had also made a request for the landlord to place extra flagging stones that were not part of the agreed work. It was not clear when this request was made, but it is likely it was made during the surveyor’s visit to the property to assess the work needed in the garden on 6 November 2021. The landlord reasoned that the current flagging stones were for access purposes, and that it had not identified the need for extra flagging stones to be placed.
41. The landlord’s decision to deny the extra flagging was reasonable as the resident had not indicated any personal reasons, such as vulnerability, that might have required additional access needs. The landlord was not obliged to make improvements to the property, and as it was deemed not to be a repair, the request was denied. However, the landlord did exercise reasonable discretion by giving permission for the resident to make the improvements himself. The landlord was not required to give its approval to make the improvements, and in doing so, it demonstrated flexibility in achieving the resident’s desired outcome. The landlord’s willingness to compromise showed intent to improve the landlord/tenant relationship, and in conjunction with aiming to commit to its promise to complete the agreed work, showed an attempt to improve service standards.
42. Although the landlord did use reasonable discretion in order to allow the resident to make improvements, there was a service failure that led to the initial delay in completing the agreed works to the garden. The failure to ensure that the contractor was fully aware of the correct work that needed to be completed led to an unnecessary and avoidable delay. A payment of compensation would be reasonable, as this Service’s remedies guidance states that offers of compensation would be expected in instances where the landlord failed to ‘meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact’. This payment would be expected to be within the region of £50 to £250.

Determination

43. In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about painting works to the exterior of the property.
44. In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a roof leak.
45. In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about garden works.
46. In accordance with paragraph 39 e of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the height of the kitchen units is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Order

47. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £100 in recognition of the delay in carrying out the agreed work to the garden.
48. The landlord to evidence compliance with this order to this Service within 28 days of this investigation report.