The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Barking and Dagenham Council (202119265)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119265

Barking and Dagenham Council

5 May 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 handling of the resident’s request:
    1. To install fencing and internal doors at her property.
    2. To reimburse her for the cost of removing rubbish from the garden.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a house.
  2. In December 2019, a mutual exchange inspection was completed with a former tenant in occupation to confirm the condition of the property prior to the resident moving in. The inspection did not identify any issues with rubbish being left or any significant repair issues to be addressed. On moving into the property, the resident did not inform the landlord that rubbish had been left in the garden. The resident then voluntarily took on the responsibility to hire a contractor to remove the rubbish which had been left in the garden by the previous tenant, costing her £500. It should be noted that the resident did not view the garden of the property before she moved in due to the former tenant’s dog being present in the garden at the time of her visit.
  3. During the period of March 2020 and July 2020, the resident raised concerns that fencing panels in the garden of her property were missing. The resident explained to the landlord that when she moved into the property, there was no existing fencing in the garden.
  4. In March 2020, contractors attended the property to quote to renew the fence along the left-hand side of the garden. The landlord had assessed the resident’s situation and had decided in March 2020 that there was a basis to fund a new fence. The landlord informed the resident it would contact her when the repairs were to be booked.  The resident had not heard from the landlord since March 2020 and so in July 2020 the resident temporarily installed bamboo screening in the garden to create security and privacy. The resident raised concerns to the landlord that a year had passed and a decision to install fencing was still pending.
  5. Works had been placed on hold due to the pandemic and were not addressed until June 2021. It is not clear when the landlord had sent its contractors to install new fencing, but the resident had explained that fencing was installed to the right-hand side and back of her garden, although there were no fencing repairs carried out to the left-hand side of the garden.
  6. The resident also addressed the need to install internal doors as the kitchen door was not fireproof and two doors had been gifted to the resident to fit in a bedroom and living room because there were no existing doors. In June 2021, the landlord had sent a permit to the resident allowing the resident to install the internal doors she had been gifted.
  7. The landlord’s final complaint response was issued in June 2021. It summarised its inspections and repairs it had undertaken, and it had apologised for delays in fitting the missing fencing and a missing fire door in the kitchen. It had acknowledged that it did not address the reason for delays in its stage one response and no priority was given to repairs until a year later in June 2021. It therefore offered the resident a total of £350 in compensation as reimbursement towards rubbish removal, and compensation for delays in carrying out the outstanding repair works. The landlord explained that the resident was informed of the terms of mutual exchange, accepting the property ‘as seen’. It had no way to verify the amount of rubbish that was left in the garden as the resident had already acted to voluntarily remove this.
  8. The resident brought her complaint to this Service in November 2021. The resident remained unhappy that the installation of fencing to the left-hand side of the garden was still outstanding and she wanted to be reimbursed for the full costs incurred for clearing rubbish in the back of the garden. The resident was satisfied that the landlord had issued a permit to install the internal doors. There was no further mention of repair reports to doors in the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord has a policy for mutual exchanges. The policy says the landlord is obliged to notify both the outgoing and incoming tenants of any repairs that they will be responsible for or to be carried out after the exchange takes place.
  2. The mutual exchange policy goes on to say: Incoming tenants to accept the ‘condition of the property they are exchanging to “as is”.
  3. The mutual exchange policy also says incoming tenants are responsible for carrying out an inspection of the property they intend to exchange to prior to the completion of the exchange.
  4. Under the landlord’s ‘right to repair’ scheme, it ensures repairs are completed within a certain period, specifying urgent repairs to be completed within 4 hours, providing maximum timescales for completion works to be carried out within 20 working days.
  5. Under the landlord’s compensation policy, the landlord’s right to repair scheme also provides compensation for improvements of up to £3,000 subject to assessment of the condition of the property.

The landlord installing fencing and internal doors at the property.

  1. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states that in respect of repairs, where a mutual exchange takes place, the property is ‘as seen’ and so the resident is responsible for fitting any internal doors which are missing at the start of the tenancy. The landlord’s complaint response confirms it gave permission for internal doors to be fitted. Although the responsibility to fit internal doors usually falls on the resident following a mutual exchange, if there is a lack of a fire door for the kitchen then the landlord would be responsible for fitting one as it is required to ensure the property meets health and safety requirements regardless of the landlord’s policy for mutual exchange. It is not clear whether a fire door was fitted to the kitchen in this case. In its final response to the complaint, the landlord referred to issuing a permit to the resident to install the doors she had been gifted, which was a reasonable response to the resident’s request for permission to fit the doors.
  2. The landlord has suggested that the fencing repairs were partly delayed due to the pandemic. Whilst we acknowledge there may have been some unavoidable delays due to the effect of the pandemic on the landlord’s services, this does not fully explain the delay of one year, which appears to be excessive. Where there are unavoidable delays to repairs, the landlord would be expected to keep the resident informed, explain the reasons for the delay and where possible agree a timescale for the repair to be completed. In this case, the landlord has acted reasonably by acknowledging its failings and apologising. It has taken steps to put things right by offering £500 compensation.  This offer is in line with the Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) as well as the landlord’s own compensation policy, as mentioned above. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests awards of between £250-700 where there has been service failure by the landlord which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. Examples include; failure to address all relevant aspects of the complaint, leading to considerable delays in resolving the complaint and significant failures to follow complaint procedures over an extended period of time.
  3. In this case, the landlord had arranged to carry out garden repairs. However, to follow up on any outstanding repairs, the landlord should arrange for its contractor to inspect the garden with a view to arrange to fitting any outstanding fencing panels (unless the fencing has already been completed).

The cost of removing rubbish from the resident’s garden.

  1. In her initial complaint the resident raised concerns to the landlord regarding rubbish removal from the garden. The landlord would not be required to reimburse the resident for the full cost of the rubbish removal in this case as she did not contact the landlord prior to removing the rubbish. If the landlord was informed that she intended to remove the rubbish herself, the landlord would have had the opportunity to remove it for her, which may have been a cheaper option. It is acknowledged that the resident did not have the opportunity to view the garden due to a former tenant’s dog being present during her visit and it is therefore understandable that she may not have been aware of the rubbish until she moved in. The landlord was reasonable in offering reimbursement towards the costs towards the removal of rubbish in view of the circumstances. The resident had informed the landlord that it had cost her £500 to have the rubbish removed; however, she did not provide receipts or other proof of this cost and without such evidence the landlord would not be expected to offer more than it has.
  2. This Service acknowledges that the landlord provided reasonable redress in relation to the resident’s concerns about rubbish removal.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its original offer of £350 in compensation if it has not already done so.
  2. It is also recommended that the landlord arrange for the fence to be inspected and for any repairs identified as necessary following this inspection to be carried out in line with the timescales in the landlord’s repairs policy, if the repairs have not already been completed.