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

North West Leicestershire District Council (202006039)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006039

North West Leicestershire District Council

28 December 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the quality of plastering in the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant in a two-bedroom bungalow.
  2. The tenancy agreement makes reference to the tenant handbook which notes the resident is responsible for internal decorations.
  3. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy 2012 notes that it is responsible for inspecting and redecorating the outside of properties and any shared areas and the internal decorations are the responsibility of the resident.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord’s voids report prior to the resident moving in notes in the bedrooms, lounge and landing all hooks, screws, nails were removed, and holes filled. There was also a crack repair to the landing cupboard.
  2. Following the resident receiving the keys to the property on 15 October 2019, and attempting to redecorate the walls, he reported that the paint would not set on the walls as it was bubbling and asserted that there was an issue with the plasterwork. The landlord contacted its Empty homes team on 30 October, and it was noted that there had been no issues with the plaster on the walls.
  3. The resident complained on 25 November following a conversation with the landlord. The resident advised that there was work needed to the bedrooms and lounge and carrying out work whilst he was in the property would be difficult and his belongings could be damaged. He requested compensation in the form of the rent and bills for the property whilst he did not reside there. The landlord discussed the matter with a paint specialist.
  4. On 26 November, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It advised that the specialist had noted the small blisters in the paint was usually a result of either one or a combination of the following:
    1. Surface contamination leaching through the paint film.
    2. Tiny particles of dust interfering with adhesion.
    3. Application on to a smooth sealed glossy surface.
    4. Air introduced into the paint or paint film through vigorous application.
    5. Application on to an over sealed surface.
  5. The landlord advised it expected the issue was an over sealed surface and as the resident had attempted to resolve the situation to no avail, it would be sending its own specialist on 28 November to undertake patch experimental work in order to identify the problem. It advised it would then update the resident with the results.
  6. The landlord carried out reskimming to the affected walls following confirmation that the issue was over sealed surfaces.
  7. The resident submitted a claim for compensation on 28 January 2020, noting he had only been able to move in as of 13 January. He requested reimbursement of rent and service charge, council tax and gas and electric for the period he did not reside at the property.
  8. The landlord responded on 14 February 2020. It apologised for the issues relating to plastering and micro bubbling of the paint. It confirmed it had reacted quickly by speaking to specialists, taking samples, and skimming the affected walls. It confirmed it would not have picked up the issue as internal decorations were the responsibility of the resident. It noted it regularly undertook repairs to plaster and skimming of walls during tenancies. It rejected the resident’s request for compensation.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation requests on 28 September and noted it would respond within 20 working days. It provided a further update on 23 October noting that it needed a further 10 days to provide the response.
  10. On 6 November the landlord provided its stage two response. It noted that the property was let in line with its lettable standard and the inspection of the internal walls, was limited to the soundness of the structure, including the plaster, which did not give rise to any work being required. It explained as a gesture of goodwill, it had attempted to assist the resident by visiting the property and carrying out sample tests. It noted as the results were inconclusive in relation to suitable remedies, as a further gesture of goodwill it offered to re-skim all the affected walls in order to help the paint adhere to the surface. It confirmed it was not responsible for the issue causing the bubbling of the paint.
  11. It noted the resident had claimed compensation given he had not moved into the property for three months due to the paint issue and that he was wary of his belongings being damaged whilst the skimming works were being carried out. It explained the works were a gesture of goodwill and it had no responsibility for the issue and as such it would not be compensating the resident following his decision not to move in.

Assessment and findings

  1. The void report makes clear that there were no issues with the walls and ceilings of the property, bar nails and hooks being removed. In line with the tenancy agreement and repairs and maintenance policy, the landlord was not responsible for the decorating of the walls or ceiling.
  2. As internal decorations are the responsibility of the resident, the landlord would not have been aware of any issue with the walls not being suitable for repainting. However, once the resident informed the landlord of the situation, it took reasonable steps, above its responsibility, by investigating the issue with a specialist and then offered, as a gesture of goodwill, to reskim the affected areas. This was over and above its obligations and reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. The Ombudsman accepts that this was also a gesture of goodwill as there is no evidence that the actual plasterwork was defective. Additionally, there would have been other options available such as wallpapering the walls, but given that the resident preferred painting of the walls, any assistance by the landlord to make this feasible, was again over and above its obligations.
  4. Whilst the resident did not move into the property until the issue was resolved, this was as a choice rather than a result of any issue which the landlord was responsible for. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports and therefore it was not responsible for compensating the resident for the period he chose not to reside at the property.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the quality of plastering in the property.

Reasons

  1. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns and as a gesture of goodwill reskimmed the affected areas so that the resident could redecorate.