Onward Homes Limited (202107736)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107736

Onward Homes Limited

11 October 2021

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. concerns over the condition of the property.
2. concerns relating to the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC).
3. request for a property transfer.

Background and summary of events

The resident is the tenant of the landlord’s property, which he moved into in December 2018. The property has a cellar which is accessed externally from the front of the property and is not classed as a habitable room within the property.
An EPC was completed for the property on 18 September 2020. The EPC reported that the properties energy rating was D, which was the average rating for properties in England. Several recommendations were made to improve the property energy rating to be an A, including the installation of internal or external wall insulation and floor insulation.
On 13 October 2020 a member of parliament (MP) contacted the landlord and forwarded an email he received from the resident. The resident said that the contractor who completed the EPC was rude, and his visit was very brief. He said the contractor did not check any windows, doors, flooring, walls, roof, or the loft insulation. The resident said he had complained about the draughts in his home (including from the cellar), a lack of insulation, and damaged windows and doors.
The landlord responded to the MP on 7 January 2021. It said a heater had been previously installed in the cellar, at the resident’s request, to keep the area warm and prevent any draughts. It explained that the EPC gives recommendations for ways to save energy which the landlord uses to formulate plans for any improvement works to properties. The landlord explained that properties on the same block had similar EPC results and, to ensure that the survey had been carried out correctly, it instructed a company to attend and give a second opinion on 18 September 2020. The EPC survey came back with the same readings as the first one (it is not clear when the first EPC was completed). Therefore, the landlord was satisfied that the first survey had been carried out correctly. The landlord apologised for the conduct of the EPC assessor and confirmed it provided feedback to the contractor. Finally, the landlord confirmed it had carried out repairs to the bedroom window and front door (which were installed in 2007) in March 2020. The windows and doors had a lifespan of 20 years and would be replaced when the lifespan expired.
The MP forwarded the landlord a further email from the resident on 13 January 2021, in which the resident reiterated his concerns about the damp and cold in the cellar, a lack of insulation to property’s floor, and a draught from his bedroom window and front door. He asked to be moved to a more appropriate property.
On 20 January 2020 the landlord replied and confirmed that the resident had an active waiting list application with the local authority (that the landlord managed) and that the resident was allocated the correct points to his application. It advised that if the resident could provide supporting medical information, it would be happy to review the application. The landlord also confirmed that it would arrange an inspection of the property to assess the resident’s concerns. It explained that the cellar was not classed as a habitable space, and therefore had different repair standards applied to it than other parts of the property.
On 2 February 2021 the landlord inspected the property. In the property inspection sheet, the landlord identified that the property was overall in good condition and there was no clear cause for concern. No damp was identified to the main property, and no draught was identified to the windows or floor. The landlord did identify some damp to one of the basement walls.
The resident made a formal complaint on 17 March 2021 about there being damp in his cellar, which he said resulted in damage to his belongings. He said that the property’s floor needed insulation from the cellar underneath, and that his roof also needed insulation. The resident said that recommendations were made as a result of the EPC, but the landlord had not acted on these, and he was spending an unreasonable amount on heating his home. Additionally, the resident complained that there was only one entrance into his property, and his bedroom was not a fire window. He said he was concerned about how he would escape if there was a fire or emergency. The resident said his request to be nominated for two flats which became available nearby was declined and asked to be moved to a more suitable property.
On 23 March 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, and said that it aimed to respond within ten working days.
In the landlord’s complaint response, dated 6 April 2021, it said the resident previously reported damp in the cellar and a heater was installed at his request to keep the area warm and prevent draughts. It confirmed a full inspection of the property was conducted on 2 February 2021 and, based on it, the landlord was satisfied that the property was in good condition and did not require any major repairs.
The landlord confirmed that it instructed a company to attend and provide a second opinion because the resident was unhappy with the first EPC report. The EPC survey came back with the same readings as the first one. Therefore, the landlord was satisfied that the first survey was carried out correctly.
Finally, the landlord confirmed that the resident had an active waiting list application with the local authority and had been given the correct points for his application. The landlord confirmed that it asked the resident to provide supporting medical evidence to help assess if he met a specific medical criterion which would allow extra points to be allocated to his application, but it was yet to receive these.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint, in emails sent between 13 and 15 April 2021. He reiterated his concerns about fire safety and the damp in the cellar. He said the electric heater in the cellar was there when he moved in and the damp air in the cellar was circulating the whole property. He noted that the EPC had issued recommendations, including floor, roof, and wall insulation. Finally, he said he provided medical evidence when he applied for housing.
On 16 April 2021 the landlord confirmed it had escalated the resident’s complaint and said it would respond by 29 April 2021.
In the landlord’s final complaint response, dated 30 April 2021, it reiterated that the inspection of the property undertaken on 2 February 2021 did not highlight any significant defects, dampness, or the need for major repairs to the property. It confirmed that the inspection also considered the cellar, which it said it had installed a heater in at the resident’s request and had signs of moisture associated with a lack of ventilation. The landlord said it believed the historic installation of a PVCu door limiting ventilation was a contributing factor to the damp. To help alleviate this, the landlord proposed to install cross ventilation to the cellar area.
The landlord also said that the layout of the property, single entrance door and ground floor window were acceptable and in line with current legislation and fire regulations. It said the window to the bedroom conformed with regulations in place at the time of its installation. It proposed to assess the window against the current building regulations for fire safety: windows should have an unobstructed openable area that complies with all of the following. i. A minimum area of 0.33m2 ii. A minimum height of 450mm and a minimum width of 450mm (the route through the window may be at an angle rather than straight through). iii. The bottom of the openable area is a maximum of 1100mm above the floor. The landlord said it would arrange for the window’s replacement, if it did not comply with the guidelines.
The landlord reiterated that it completed a second EPC at the resident’s request which confirmed a rating of Band D, in line with the original EPC. The landlord explained that, while the EPC identified potential improvements that could be made, the rating was in line with the average energy rating for the country. It said it would consider energy improvements to obtain Band C for all properties by 2030 and would prioritise properties based on current ratings. The landlord also said that, given the current energy rating of the property, additional insulation would be considered in the future as part of its energy improvements programme.
Finally, the landlord reiterated that the resident had an active waiting list application with the local authority and had been allotted the correct points for his application. If the resident could provide supporting medical evidence, it would assess whether the resident met a specific medical criterion which would then potentially allow extra points to be allocated to support the resident’s rehousing application.
Later, according to the landlord’s records, on 27 July 2021 the resident confirmed to the landlord that a contractor had attended to measure the windows that day. The landlord replaced the bedroom window in August 2021.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations

In line with the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs handbook, the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property, including internal and external walls, outside doors, windowsills and window frames, floors, and ceilings. The repairs handbook says residents are responsible for treating damp and condensation (the landlord may be responsible if problem persists and has been caused by disrepair). It also says that, from time to time, the landlord will also carry out planned maintenance including replacing windows and doors.
The landlord administers the housing register on behalf of the local authority. It allocates its properties in accordance with a common allocations policy agreed with the local authority and manages all nominations to other housing associations on behalf of the local authority. Because of that, most concerns about housing transfer applications are the responsibility of the relevant local authority, and ultimately for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to investigate, rather than the Housing Ombudsman. This investigation considers only the landlord’s explanations to the resident about his options, and not the reasonableness of any decisions it has made.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over the condition of the property.

The resident raised several concerns regarding the condition of the property, namely that there was damp in the cellar; that there was cold air coming from the cellar, door and windows; and that there was only one main door to the property, raising fire safety concerns.
In accordance with the tenancy agreement and repairs handbook, the landlord is obligated to repair and maintain the interior and exterior walls, the windows, and the external door in the property. It was therefore necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns and to take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified.
When deciding on how best to proceed with the repair, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. In this case, the landlord’s staff inspected the property on 2 February 2021 and found it to be in good condition. It did not identify any damp to the main property, or any draughts from the windows or floor. The landlord did identify “some damp” to one of the basement walls.
Ultimately, the landlord has relied on the findings of its qualified staff and contractors, who deemed that the property was in a good condition and no major repairs were required. While the landlord identified some damp to the cellar, it was not to the level that the resident reported, and the landlord proposed to install ventilation to alleviate it. A landlord would be entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors, and accordingly the landlord’s response to the complaint, which reflected its operatives’ opinions, was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord also found that the layout of the property, single entrance door and ground floor window were acceptable and in line with current legislation and regulation. It said the window to the bedroom conformed with regulations in place at the time of its installation and it proposed to assess it against the current building regulations for fire safety. The evidence indicates that, after its final response, the landlord did do this and replaced the window, in line with its obligations.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns relating to the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC).

In response to the resident’s concerns about the properties EPC, including its insulation and the costs of heating the property, the landlord arranged for an EPC to be completed on 18 September 2020. The EPC rating of D given was in line with the average for the country, and that of similar nearby houses. The contractor who completed the EPC gave recommendations for improving the EPC rating to an A including the installation of wall and floor insulation.
The landlord has explained that it will consider energy improvements to obtain Band C for all properties by 2030 and, given the current energy rating of the property, additional insulation would be considered in the future as part of its energy improvements programme. Properties which have an EPC below band E are classed as ‘substandard’ by regulations. Therefore, the landlord is not obligated to carry out any immediate works to improve the properties EPC, and its responses to the resident’s concerns were reasonable.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for a property transfer.

In response to the resident’s request to be rehoused, the landlord has confirmed that the resident had an active waiting list application with the local authority and had been allotted the correct points for his application.
The Ombudsman cannot consider the landlord’s assessment of re-housing applications on behalf of the local authority, or the award of points or banding (complaints about such are more likely to be considered by the LGSCO). However, the landlord has provided the resident with the appropriate advice on how it could consider any supporting medical evidence to assess whether the resident met a specific medical criterion which would then potentially allow extra points to be allocated to support the resident’s rehousing application. In the context of the limited scope available to the Housing Ombudsman, the landlord has responded reasonably to the resident’s enquiries about re-housing.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about its response to the resident’s:
1. concerns over the condition of the property.
2. concerns relating to the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC).
3. requests for a property transfer.

Reasons

The landlord has taken reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns, in line with its obligations, by inspecting the property and arranging for an EPC to be completed. The landlord’s subsequent response was in line with its operators’ findings, which it was entitled to rely on. The landlord has provided the resident with the appropriate information in relation to his request for a property transfer via the local authority’s housing register.