Cornwall Housing Limited (201907060)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201907060

Cornwall Housing Limited

23 December 2020

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 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:

1. response to the resident’s reports of repairs required in the bathroom at the property,
2. decision to charge the resident for repairs to the tap in the bathroom at the property and
3. complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required in the bathroom at the property.
4. Paragraph 39 (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that, “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.”
5. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident made numerous reports of repairs required to the bathroom between February 2014 and May 2016. However, the resident did not make a formal complaint to the landlord about its response to those reports of repairs until 20 May 2019 when he made a formal complaint about the landlord charging him for repairing the tap. This was some 36 months after resident’s last report of repairs required to the bathroom (apart from the report about the electric shock in November 2018).
6. As the matter was not pursued as a formal complaint with the landlord within a reasonable time, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising, this aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background

7. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority.

Conditions of a secure tenancy

8. The landlord’s conditions of a secure tenancy say that a tenant has the right to carry out his own improvements to the property however the tenant must get the landlord’s written agreement before doing any work. The landlord will not refuse permission unless there is a good reason. If a tenant makes an improvement or alteration to the home without the landlord’s written agreement, this is likely to amount to a breach of the tenancy and the landlord may tell the tenant to return the property to how it was before. If the tenant does not return the property to how it was, the landlord may do the work and charge the tenant for it.

The landlord’s complaints policy

9. The landlord has a 3 step complaints procedure. Before accepting an escalation of a complaint to step 2 the landlord may ask the resident to show it has failed to reply to the points in the step 1 complaint. Step 3 is a review by the landlord’s tenant’s appeal panel.

Summary of events

10. Sometime prior to April 2018 the resident installed a new bathroom at the property. On 11 April 2018 the landlord granted retrospective permission to the resident for the works that he had carried out to the bathroom. The permission letter included a document headed “Conditions to be observed in connection with structural and other alterations to a council house”. One of the conditions was that that the landlord would not be liable for future maintenance of the works.
11. In November 2018 the resident informed the landlord that he had received an electric shock in the bathroom. The landlord’s electrician attended the property on 27 November 2018. The electrician reported back that the electric shock was as a result of an improperly earthed power supply connected to an instant hot-water tap wired using fire-alarm cable. The electrician disconnected this wiring in order to make it safe.
12. The landlord’s repair log says, “Tenant is being shocked by a tap he has installed in the bathroom. He has had this installed without our permission and did this himself. This is a tap on the sink. Tenant aware of recharge.”
13. In April 2019 the landlord sent the resident an invoice for £160 for the repair works it carried out to the tap in the bathroom on 27 November 2018.
14. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 20 May 2019 and followed up with emails to the landlord on 20 May and 21 May 2019. The resident said that that he had carried out the improvement to the bathroom and spent over £5000 because the landlord hadn’t carried out repairs to the bathroom. As he had spent money on improving the bathroom, he wasn’t happy to pay for the repair work carried out on 27 November 2018.
15. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 31 May 2019. The landlord said that it had records of repairs to the bathroom being reported to the landlord and responded to prior to May 2016. However, the only recent reports were of a leak in December 2017 which had been responded to in January and February 2018 and the report of the problem with the tap in November 2018. The landlord also said that the resident had carried out an installation of a bathroom, including an instant hot water tap, without its knowledge and the tap “owing to the improper wiring, constituted a potential fire-hazard. The electrician disconnected this wiring in order to make it safe.” The landlord concluded by saying that as the resident chose to install this without requesting the correct permissions from the landlord a recharge was issued to him which had been notified to him by the landlord at the time of the repair.
16. On 4 June 2019 the resident sent an email to the landlord saying that he wasn’t happy with its response to his complaint and said he wouldn’t pay the invoice for the tap repair until the landlord took him to court and a judge said he should pay it.
17. On 17 June 2019 the landlord replied to the resident’s email saying that it had no records of any repair reports he had made other than those listed in its letter dated 31 May 2019 and that it was therefore upholding the step 1 complaint findings.
18. On 3 February 2020 the resident sent an email to the landlord again disputing the recharge costs and attaching copies of receipts for the purchase of tiles he made in February 2018.
19. Following contactfrom thisService on 4 September 2019, asking for it to clarify to the resident whether the complaint had exhaustedits internal complaints process, the landlord issued a furtherresponseto the complaint on 2 March 2020. The landlord said that retrospective permission was granted for the bathroom installation on 11th April 2018 and that the conditions of the permission clearly stated that the resident was responsible for the costs of the work and the upkeep of the work once completed. The landlord said that therefore its request for payment of the recharge invoice stood and should be paid as soon as possible and that it would close the complaint from further investigation.
20. The resident then asked for the complaint to be reviewed and an appeal panel met to review the complaint on 11 August 2020. The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 August 2020 to advise him of the panel’s decision. The panel did not uphold the complaint and explained that the resident needed to pay the invoice for the repair to the tap. The panel recommended that the landlord made sure that residents were aware of its complaints process to avoid them contacting other bodies before the process has been exhausted. The letter was the landlord’s final response to the complaint, confirming that its complaints process had been exhausted.

Assessment and findings

Complaint about the landlord’s decision to charge the resident for repairs to the tap in the bathroom at the property

21. In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. This Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a resident and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.
22. As set out in paragraph 7 above one of the conditions of the resident’s tenancy is that he must get the landlord’s written agreement before carrying our any improvements to the property. This condition is regardless of how the landlord has responded to any reports of repairs required at a property. The resident therefore carried out the bathroom installation, including installing the hot water tap, in breach of his tenancy.
23. However, the landlord granted retrospective permission for this and, as set out in paragraph 9, this permission referred to the “Conditions to be observed in connection with structural and other alterations to a council house”. One of the conditions was that that the landlord would not be liable for future maintenance of the works. The landlord therefore had no obligation to carry out repair work to the tap, as repair works to the bathroom installation carried out by the resident were the responsibility of the resident. The landlord’s investigations indicated that the problem that needed repairing was caused by the incorrect installation of the tap, which was work carried out by the resident, and therefore the resident was responsible for putting this right.
24. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 22 the landlord therefore acted appropriately and in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement and policy obligations in charging the resident for the repair of the bathroom tap at the property.

Complaint about the landlord’s complaints handling

 

25. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 25 and 26 below the landlord acted unreasonably in its handling of the complaint.
26. The landlord’s complaint responses dated 17 June 2019 (paragraph 16) and 2 March 2020 (paragraph 18) did not clearly explain to the resident how he could escalate his complaint if he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. The landlord’s failure to clearly explain how the resident could escalate his complaint caused him to incur time and trouble in contacting this Service to clarify the status of his complaint with the landlord.
27. This Service contacted the landlord on 4 September 2020 asking it to clarify to the resident the status of his complaint. However, the landlord did not contact the resident to update him on the complaint until 2 March 2020, some 125 working days later, and only after 5 further email requests from this Service.

Determination (decision)

Complaint about the landlord’s decision to charge the resident for repairs to the tap in the bathroom at the property

 

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint. 

 

The complaint about the landlord’s complaints handling

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint. 

 

Reasons

Complaint about the landlord’s decision to charge the resident for repairs to the tap in the bathroom at the property

The landlord acted appropriately, in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement and its polices in charging the resident for repairs to the tap in the bathroom at the property.

The complaint about the landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord did not clearly explain to the resident how to escalate his complaint and delayed in updating the resident as to the status of his complaint when contacted by this Service.

Order

 

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of the determination to pay the resident £75 for the time and trouble spent pursuing this complaint due to the landlord’s failure to clearly explain how to escalate the complaint and delay in updating the resident as to the status of his complaint.