Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Yorkshire Housing Limited (202208452)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208452

Yorkshire Housing Limited

14 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the patio door.

Background

  1. The landlord is a housing association. The resident and his partner are joint assured non-shorthold tenants of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The tenancy started on 14 March 2016.
  2. The resident has dementia and told the landlord about his vulnerability in December 2021.
  3. From May 2016 the resident had reported issues with the patio door to the landlord. On 17 February 2020, it was recorded on the landlord’s information systems that the resident’s partner was bruised from falling after opening the door. The patio door had been replaced with a new door prior to this incident. On 29 September 2020 he complained that the patio door had broken off twice previously due to the wind. He received a stage 1 complaint response on 2 October 2020, but did not escalate that complaint.
  4. He would report issues again with the patio door and the communal airer on 31 October 2021 by email. He was concerned about the safety of the door and not being able to use it. On 4 November 2021, an appointment was arranged to inspect the patio door and communal airer on 16 November 2021.
  5. Following the landlord’s contractor’s visit on 16 November 2021, the resident complained about the service he received and the landlord refusing to improve the communal airer. During the visit, a dispute had taken place between the parties as he was told a new door catch could be fitted. He felt that was not sufficient and a new door should be fitted instead.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 6 December 2021. It apologised to the resident that the airer was still causing problems. It said that the patio door had a restrictor fitted and when the contractor attended on 16 November 2021, the resident asked the contractor to leave the property. It arranged for another appointment which was attended on 16 December 2021. Following that inspection, it raised works to supply and fit a new communal rotary dryer and add a new hook to the patio door. However, the resident was dissatisfied with the stage 1 complaint response and escalated the complaint on 20 December 2021.
  7. Prior to the landlord’s final response, it discussed the issues with the resident’s partner, who was happy with the works it had arranged and did not think it was reasonable for it to replace the patio door.
  8. On 18 January 2022, the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident and told him that it would not replace the patio door. It said the existing door at the time was serviceable and installing a heavy hook was a fair solution to help the resident enjoy fresh air, even when the wind was blowing. It also told him that a new communal rotary dryer was going to be installed close to his property.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He referred his complaint only regarding the patio door to this Service on 22 July 2022. He outlined the history of repairs since 2016 and said the door was unsuitable. He also said that his partner could have been hurt worse as the door was unsafe. Further, in windy conditions the impact from the door swinging could have hurt people passing by. He wanted the landlord to either replace the patio door or change it from an outward opening door to an inward swinging door.
  10. In January 2024, the landlord agreed to change the patio door. Initially the landlord intended to provide the resident with a sliding door, but after inspecting the property, the resident informed this Service the landlord would change the patio door to open inwards.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42a of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. Unless it is because of a complaint handling failure.
  2. The resident complained of issues regarding the patio door in 2016 up until 29 September 2020 and there is evidence that repairs were made by the landlord in that period. The resident feels the issues has been ongoing since then. The resident received a stage 1 complaint response from the landlord about these issues on 2 October 2020, but there is no evidence he escalated that complaint. There was also no contact with this Service by the resident until July 2022. Residents are expected to refer complaints within 12 months of exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure. Ultimately, as the resident did not exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, this Service will not consider the issues complained of in September 2020 regarding the patio door in line with paragraph 42a of the Scheme.
  3. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to when the resident reported further issues with the patio door from 31 October 2021 until the complaint was referred to this Service in July 2022. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. It is noted that the landlord has since agreed to change the doors following subsequent reports of repairs required in 2023. Any new issues or repairs required to the patio door that have not been subject to a formal complaint can potentially be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

Policies and procedures

  1. Within the tenancy agreement, the landlord is obligated to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the premises. This includes outside walls, outside doors, windowsills, window catches, glazing of doors and windows, sash cords, and window frames. It also includes any external painting and decorating. The landlord is also to keep in repair the internal walls, floors and ceilings, doors and door frames, door hinges, and skirting boards.
  2. The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. Emergency repairs are to be attended to within 4 hours and made safe, it will then attempt to complete the repair within 24 hours of the initial report. Where this is not possible, it will arrange further appointments. Urgent repairs are to be completed within 7 calendar days of the initial report. Routine repairs are to be completed within 28 calendar days from the time of the first report.

The resident’s concerns regarding the patio door

  1. The initial report about the patio door was made by the resident on 31 October 2021. He received an acknowledgment of his report by return email from the landlord 2 calendar days after. On 4 November 2021 it confirmed the appointment to him by phone, which was booked for 16 November 2021. The landlord had taken 16 calendar days to attend the property which was appropriate and in line with its responsive repairs policy.
  2. On the visit of 16 November 2021, the landlord’s contractor left after being asked to by the resident. The resident told the landlord he had sworn at the contractor because they would not fit a new patio door. Although he was frustrated a new door would not be fitted, it was reasonable for the contractor to have left the property.
  3. The landlord’s contractor noted from the visit of 16 November 2021 that the patio door had a restrictor placed, to stop it catching in the wind. From the evidence provided, on that day it suggested a new door catch could be fitted but the resident refused. The landlord believed this was adequate and there were no further repairs required. At that stage, it was appropriate for the landlord to rely on its qualified staff and contractors if they determined that the patio door was not in need of replacement and had no health and safety concerns.
  4. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord had called the resident to discuss the issues on 3 December 2021. After this call, its records show it agreed internally that it would inspect the patio doors again. This was confirmed in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, and it arranged to re-assess the patio door on 16 December 2021. This was reasonable and following its inspection, its records show it would carry out remedial works to the patio door.
  5. On 18 January 2022 the landlord had agreed with the resident’s partner that it would install a heavy hook to hold the patio door open. As the resident was unavailable and the resident’s partner is a joint tenant, both residents share equal responsibility. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to check with the resident’s partner. The next steps were confirmed in the landlord’s final response to the resident. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout was clear and fair.
  6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he said he wanted the patio door to be replaced or changed from opening outwards to inwards. While the resident maintained there were safety concerns, it would be unreasonable for the landlord to replace the patio door if after inspecting the door, it believed it to be adequate and serviceable. However, it showed willingness to listen to the resident’s concerns and add a patio door hook. As a result, the landlord had gone above what was expected of it, which was fair in the circumstances.
  7. Ultimately, the resident did not want a hook on the patio door as he felt it was unsuitable and he would have to open the door to hook it. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord did not complete the repair order and it had not considered the patio door to be in a state of disrepair.
  8. Overall, the landlord acted reasonably as it completed assessments of the patio doors in reasonable timeframes, relied on its contractor’s opinions to determine the door was not in need of replacement, and offered to complete additional repairs after listening to the resident’s concerns. As such, this Service finds there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the patio door.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the patio door.