Magenta Living (202113362)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113362

Magenta Living

12 September 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 report of missing bricks in the roof-space wall.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a house. The resident has authorised a representative to deal with her complaint on her behalf. The representative is an occupant of the property. For ease, this investigation will refer to the complainants singularly, as ‘the resident’.
3. On 29 March 2021 the landlord raised the following job; “please call and check interjoining wall in loft between properties as missing bricks.” An operative attended the resident’s home to inspect the issue on 16 April 2021. The operative noted that it was “unable to climb into loft to assess properly.”
4. There is no evidence of further activity until the resident contacted the landlord to make a formal complaint regarding the matter on 3 September 2021. The resident was unhappy as no repair work had been actioned, and said that the operative who previously attended the property had refused to go into the loft.
5. The landlord issued its stage one response on 13 September 2021, in which it apologised for any inconvenience or distress which the situation may have caused. It said the operative who originally attended to inspect the issue could not access the loft, due to the size of the hatch. It said that it had spoken to the resident on more than one occasion following the complaint, in an attempt to arrange for another inspection, but had been unable to agree an appointment date. It explained that the resident had said that he did not wish to agree an appointment over the phone, and had asked it to arrange an appointment and confirm this by letter. As such, the landlord said it had arranged for a visit to inspect the issue on 27 September 2021, and advised the resident to contact it to reschedule if the appointment was not convenient.
6. The landlord visited the resident’s home in September, to inspect the issue as it had agreed, but was unable to gain access to the property.
7. The resident contacted this Service as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. Following correspondence with this Service, the landlord wrote to him on 2 December 2021 and explained that it had received a request to escalate his complaint. It said it had tried to call the resident that day to discuss the matter further, but had been unsuccessful. It asked the resident to supply further evidence in support of why he believed the complaint should be appealed, or to arrange a suitable date and time for the loft to be inspected, in order for it to provide a resolution. The landlord subsequently wrote to the resident on 16 December 2021 and informed him that that it had closed the complaint, as he had not been in contact.
8. To resolve the situation, the resident has advised this Service that he wants the landlord to send an independent surveyor to inspect the property and to complete any necessary repairs.

Assessment and findings

9. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair, including the roof and external walls.
10. The resident’s tenancy agreement also outlines the resident’s obligation to allow access to their home for inspections and repair work, normally at forty-eight hours or more notice.
11. The landlord explained to the resident that it was unable to complete the initial inspection in April 2021 because its operative “was unable to gain access to the loft, due to the small loft hatch.” This was a reasonable explanation and was in accordance with its repair records. It is sometimes the case that unforeseen difficulties may arise. In such cases, a landlord would be expected to take meaningful steps to overcome these and resolve any outstanding repairs as quickly as possible. However, the evidence does not show that the landlord took any further action to progress the matter following this, until a formal complaint was registered almost five months later. No evidence has been provided to suggest there was a reasonable explanation for this. This was a service failure and potentially conveyed a lack of urgency, and would have undoubtedly caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
12. It is apparent that the landlord has made several attempts to arrange for an inspection of the issue, following the resident’s complaint, and it appropriately utilised its complaints process to do so. However, the failed appointment in September 2021 and inability to arrange an inspection following this were the result of the landlord not being given access to property, and therefore these additional delays were outside its control.
13. It was reasonable that the landlord decided not to review the resident’s complaint at stage two of its complaints process, given that the evidence does not show that the resident engaged with the landlord following its stage one response to arrange for another inspection, or responded to its request for further information regarding the complaint. Without being able to gain access to the property to assess the situation, or being provided with further clarification on why the resident remained dissatisfied, the landlord was limited in what steps it could take to resolve the matter. It appropriately wrote to the resident and explained its decision, and clarified that its complaints process had been completed.
14. The resident has said that to resolve the situation, he wanted a surveyor that is independent of the landlord to assess the property. It was unclear if he meant the landlord’s contractor as opposed to an in-house operative, or a surveyor of his choice. Nonetheless, there is no obligation on the landlord to agree to the resident’s choice of surveyor, and the evidence does not show that the resident brought this to the landlord’s attention so the landlord has not had opportunity to respond to this request.
15. Ultimately, the landlord has demonstrated that it utilised its complaints process to take reasonable steps to meet its obligations in attempting to arrange for an inspection of the repair issue, but has been unable to do this or remedy the situation, bar the initial 5 month delay, through no apparent fault of its own. The landlord needs to be given the opportunity to assess the scale of the problem in the first instance, in order to put matters right. Nonetheless, there was no evidence of it taking appropriate action to inspect the issue between April and September 2021 following its initial failure to do so, which was a service failure that the landlord has not acknowledged.
16. To remedy the above, the landlord should apologise to the resident and pay compensation of £50. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which suggests that remedies in the range of £50 to £250 may be used for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant but may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant.
17. The award has been offered on the lower scale given that following the landlord’s attempts to resolve the matter, no further clarification was provided or engagement from the resident, therefore it cannot be said that had the landlord made contact sooner, this would have been any different.

Determination

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

Orders

19. The landlord is ordered to do the following within four weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £50.
    2. Contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the roof space.