Midland Heart Limited (202108007)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108007

Midland Heart Limited

17 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. reports of disrepair issues, including (but not limited to):
  1. a rodent infestation;
  2. a blocked drain;
  3. lighting in kitchen and bathroom;
2. request for a property transfer.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 30 March 2009. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a ground floor flat.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes that the landlord will not consider complaints older than six months.
The landlord operates an allocations policy. The policy notes that properties are allocated by residents bidding on suitable properties, or by mutual exchange. The policy also notes that the landlord may offer a direct let where there is an adaption required that cannot be completed in the existing property, or where the police have confirmed it is not safe for the resident to remain at the property.
The tenancy agreement requires that the resident provide access to the landlord or its contractors for the purpose of carrying out repairs.

Summary of events

It is not disputed that the resident has reported multiple concerns regarding his property in the years prior to the period of the complaint. The landlord’s records indicate that prior to the resident’s report in March 2021, it had not received a report from the resident for eight months. It therefore advised it was unable to consider the resident’s concerns prior to March 2021. This position has been commented on below in the section headed ‘Assessment and findings’.
The landlord’s records indicate that on 21 March 2021, the resident reported that his toilet was blocked and that his kitchen ceiling had collapsed. The landlord arranged for an emergency call out, however, its operatives were unable to gain access. Later on the same date, the resident reported a blocked drain. The landlord attended once again on the same day and on this occasion was able to gain access. The landlord’s operative assessed the drain and determined further works were required. It is not evident whether the operative investigated the reports regarding the toilet or kitchen ceiling at this time.
The resident again reported concerns about the kitchen ceiling on 23 March 2021. The landlord attended on the same date and did not detect a collapse, but did note a leak coming from the property above. It subsequently raised works to address this and completed the works and associated replastering on 23 April 2021.
Additionally, in or around March 2021, the resident reported an infestation of mice and rats at the property. The landlord attended on 12 April 2021 and completed works to seal the entrance points for rodents.
The resident reported a further issue with the toilet on 28 June 2021. The landlord attended the same day, but was unable to gain access. It attended the next day, and determined the cause to be the external drain, which was blocked. The landlord subsequently carried out further works to clear the drain on 30 June 2021.
On 5 July 2021, the resident reported cracks in the brickwork of the property and raised concerns about structural damage. The landlord arranged for its surveyor to attend the property on 6 August 2021. The surveyor identified works required to the kitchen and bathroom lighting, to patch the wall, and to clear the guttering. The landlord subsequently arranged for an electrician to attend at this time, who identified that an Electrical Inspection Condition Report (EICR) was required prior to reinstating the lights. This service has been provided with the internal communications from the period of the complaint, which show that the landlord did not consider that temporary lighting was necessary as there was a window in the kitchen and bathroom providing natural light.
The resident also reported further signs of rodent infestation in or around July 2021. The landlord attended on 12 July and detected signs of mice, but not rats. It also noted a large amount of household rubbish in and around the property and advised the resident to clear this in order to minimise the risk of rodents. It subsequently arranged for its pest control contractor to attend the property on 11 August 2021, however, the contractor was unable to gain access to the property. It is evident that the resident had concerns that the pest control contractor would use gas to fumigate the property and that he was not comfortable remaining in the property during this process. He subsequently requested to be temporarily decanted, however, the landlord refused this request.
Throughout July 2021, the resident reported his concerns to this service, and subsequently, a formal complaint was raised with the landlord in or around early August 2021. The landlord provided its stage one response on 19 August 2021, in which it noted the following:
1. It advised that as per its complaints policy, it would not investigate complaints relating to events prior to March 2021, as this was older than six months.
2. It provided a detailed history of the events noted above, and advised it was currently awaiting the results of the EICR report. Following this it would carry out any necessary works to reinstate the lighting in his kitchen and bathroom.
3. It had also raised works regarding the wall and the guttering and would provide a date for these works in due course.
4. Regarding the rodent infestation, it noted it had not been able to gain access during its previous visit, and that it would rearrange this visit for 1 September 2021.
5. It noted the resident’s desire to be decanted, but that its surveyor had advised they “found no reason to decant you whilst the works to your home are completed.”
6. It further noted it had previously given the resident advice about how to apply for new properties, and that mutual exchange was also an option.
The pest control contractor was once again unable to gain access to the property on 1 September 2022. The resident advised this was due to his concerns about the fumigation process and he reiterated his request to be decanted. The landlord arranged for a further visit on 22 September 2021, but once again the contractor was unable to gain access. The landlord subsequently advised the resident that he was required to provide access for necessary works, and that it would not be considering a decant as not necessary. Around this time, the resident requested that his complaint be escalated.
The landlord attempted to access the property once more on 27 September 2021, however, once again, the resident denied access. In order to complete the works as quickly as possible, the landlord subsequently agreed to decant the resident to a hotel from 30 September 2021 until 14 October 2021. During this time, the landlord’s records show it completed all the works recommended by the surveyor, as well as the works related to pest control.
After returning to the property, the resident reported that he was not happy with the works and that he was under the impression a new kitchen would be installed. He also noted he was yet to receive the landlord’s stage two response.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 19 October 2021, in which it noted the following:
1. It confirmed there were no further issues with rodents following its works.
2. It also confirmed the works it had carried out, which included: rewiring the kitchen light, fitting a new light in the kitchen, fitting a new light in the bathroom, renewing the toilet cistern, clearing the drains, installing a new radiator, repairing the wall cracks, repointing the wall, and renewing the external felt roof.
3. It confirmed its position that based on its surveyor’s reports, the property was suitable for habitation.
4. It also reiterated its advice regarding the resident’s options to apply for a property transfer.
It is evident that the resident remains dissatisfied with the condition of the property, and it is the Ombudsman’s understanding that he is currently not living at the property and continues to wish to be relocated by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Disrepair issues

The landlord’s complaints policy notes that it may not investigate complaints that are older than six months. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance, as it can be difficult to carry out an effective investigation of complaints older than six months due to the availability of evidence.
When making his formal complaint, the resident raised concerns about the property dating back to 2014. The landlord appropriately measured his expectations at this point by explaining it would not be able to investigate issues older than six months. Its position that prior to March 2021, it had not received a report for eight months, and therefore it would limit its investigation to March 2021 onwards was reasonable in the circumstances.
This service has not been provided with a repairs policy from the landlord, however, in instances where repairs have been reported, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to attend within a reasonable timeframe, which would depend on the circumstances of the report. Following the resident’s reports in March 2021 about issues with his toilet and with his kitchen ceiling, it is evident that the landlord attempted to attend on the same day. This was an appropriate response and in line with what the Ombudsman would consider best practice. Similarly, the landlord attended within the same timeframe following the further reports of a blocked drain.
When investigating a report, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to satisfy itself as to the nature of any repair issue and for it to discharge its repair responsibilities if necessary, e.g. carry out a necessary repair. While it is evident that the landlord’s operative investigated the blocked drain and arranged for further works, it is not evident that the operative used this opportunity to investigate the reports about the collapsed ceiling, having been unable to do so earlier due to no access. Nor did the landlord book in any further attempts to investigate the reports regarding the ceiling. This led to the resident having to expend time and trouble by reporting it again on 23 March 2021. On this occasion, the landlord once again appropriately attended on the same date, and subsequently arranged for reasonable works to address the identified leak. Given that the delay to this inspection was only two days, and there was no significant detriment caused to the resident, this does not amount to service failure in this instance.
Additionally, the landlord appropriately carried out works in April 2021 to address the reports of rodent issues, which were also within a reasonable timeframe from the reports in March 2021.
Following the resident’s reports of structural damage in July 2021, the landlord appropriately arranged for a surveyor to assess the property. Given the expertise required to assess structural issues, it was reasonable that the landlord arranged for an expert surveyor. While it took a month for the surveyor to assess the property, this was reasonable given the limited availability of experts, and given that there were no concerns of immediate danger.
As noted in the landlord’s stage one response, following this assessment, it followed the guidance of the surveyor and arranged for all recommended works to be completed. While there was a delay relating to the lighting requiring an EICR report, this delay was reasonable as it was unforeseen and the landlord took immediate action to arrange for the EICR. The landlord chose not to provide temporary lighting in the kitchen and bathroom, and justified this by the fact each room had a window. The Ombudsman notes that this would not have been of assistance at night, however, given that it is not evident that the resident requested temporary lighting, this approach was reasonable.
Following the resident’s further reports of rodents in July 2021, the landlord appropriately arranged for further pest control works, which included lifting the floorboards and fumigating underneath. It is evident that its pest control contractor did not consider a decant necessary for these works, and it was reasonable that the landlord considered the resident’s request for a decant and sought to alleviate his concerns.
The landlord made multiple attempts to arrange access for these works and on each occasion, the resident refused access due to concerns about the pest treatment. As noted above, it is a requirement in the tenancy agreement for the resident to allow access for necessary works, and so it was reasonable that the landlord advised it may seek tenancy enforcement if access was not granted.
Given that the resident continued to refuse access, the landlord appropriately used its discretion to arrange for a decant to allow it to complete the pest works and the works recommended by the surveyor. The landlord appropriately measured the resident’s expectations about the time he would spend in temporary accommodation, and completed the works within this timeframe.
Following the resident’s return to the property and expression that he was not satisfied with the works, the landlord, in its stage two response, appropriately set out the works that had been completed and its position that its expert surveyor considered the property suitable for habitation. Given its assessment of the property and observation that the property was unclean, it was also reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to keep the property clean and tidy in order to prevent further rodent infestations.
In summary, the landlord appropriately attended to the resident’s reports of disrepair issues within reasonable timeframes and carried out appropriate works. It was also reasonable for it to rely on its expert’s opinion that the works completed resulted in the property being fit for habitation.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident disputed this position and remains dissatisfied with the property. The considerations around a property transfer are discussed further below, however, the Ombudsman would not expect a landlord to consider a property uninhabitable due to historical repair issues that have now been addressed. Should there be any further repair issues affecting the property, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to attend to these as necessary. A recommendation has been made below that the landlord enquire with the resident as to any outstanding repair issues.

Property transfer

The landlord’s allocations policy notes that the landlord will only offer a direct let where there is a specific need, i.e. due to the resident being unsafe in the property, or requiring a specific adaption that cannot be carried out. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that such a need would not include instances where there are repair issues at a property which can be addressed.
The policy also notes that outside of an offer of direct let, the options for a property transfer include its bidding system, or through a mutual exchange.
Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has made it clear he wished to be relocated from the property. On a number of occasions, including in its formal responses, the landlord has provided information about how to apply for new properties and offered to provide assistance with this process. It has also made its position clear that it would not offer a direct let.
Based on the evidence provided to this service, the landlord’s position that it will not offer a direct let is reasonable, as it is not evident there is a specific need. As noted above, while the Ombudsman understands the resident is dissatisfied with his property, there is no evidence to suggest there is an immediate risk or required adaption that cannot be installed. Should the resident be able to demonstrate such a risk or need, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to reconsider its position.
In summary, the information assistance offered to the resident was appropriate, and based on the evidence, the landlord’s decision not to offer a direct let was reasonable. A recommendation has been made below that the landlord reiterate its offer to provide assistance to the resident for an application on its property bidding system.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s:
1. reports of disrepair issues, including (but not limited to):
  1. a rodent infestation;
  2. a blocked drain;
  3. lighting in kitchen and bathroom;
2. request for a property transfer.

Reasons

Disrepair issues

The landlord attended to the resident’s reports within reasonable timeframes and completed reasonable works to address the issues reported. It was also reasonable for it to rely on the expert opinions of its surveyor and complete the works recommended.
The landlord also appropriately used its discretion to offer a decant while it completed these works, along with the pest control works that were causing concern for the resident.

Property transfer

Based on the evidence, it was reasonable for the landlord to not offer a direct let, and instead to provide advice and assistance in relation to bidding on a property.

Recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord to write to the resident and include the following:
1. enquire as to any outstanding repairs at the property, and should there be any repairs reported, provide a timeframe for it to attend;
2. reiterate its offer of assistance in relation to an application for a property transfer.