Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited (202203818)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203818

Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited

31 October 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 replacement of a gate at the resident’s property.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a house.
3. On 9 July 2021 the resident reported that the rear gate was broken as the post had come away. He complained that he had a dog and his garden was no longer secure.
4. There is no evidence of further communication on the matter until the landlord inspected the issue in December 2021, noting that the gate was beyond repair, the resident had secured it with bricks, but it was in need of replacement. On 9 December 2021 a job was raised to replace the rear gate with a 6ft gate and posts as required. The landlord scheduled a target completion date of 11 March 2022.
5. In February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and expressed concern that the insecure gate posed a health and safety risk to her dog, as it could escape onto the road and become injured. She also reported that strong winds had blown down the fence between her garden and the neighbouring property. In response, the landlord advised that if there was a health and safety risk, it would request that the fence be made safe but advised the resident that this may require the fence to be removed all together. It said that it would not undertake the work sooner for the reason of having dogs or/and children present at the property.
6. The resident raised a complaint on 28 February 2022. She reported that a wind had blown down her “propped up” gate the previous day, allowing her dog to escape, and as a result it had sustained injury by being run-over by a car. To resolve the complaint, she wanted the landlord to apologise, reimburse her for the vet bills she had incurred, and to treat the gate as an urgent repair. She also raised an issue with her neighbour erecting a temporary fence.
7. It is noted that the gate and fence were inspected on the 8 March 2022, and that the gate was replaced on 14 March 2022.
8. The landlord issued its stage one response on 14 March 2022. Regarding the gate, it apologised that its service was less than it should have been in handling the replacement, which should have been completed sooner and that at times its communication was lacking. It expressed its sympathies regarding the injury suffered to the dog, but noted that it was not liable for the incident and advised the resident to seek reimbursement for any vet costs via an insurance claim (it is understood that the landlord meant pet insurance). In recognition of the general distress caused to the resident, it offered compensation of £400 (this comprised of £150 for inconvenience and £250 for distress).
9. The resident subsequently escalated her complaint, reiterating that the landlord was liable for her dog’s injury, as it would not have escaped if replacement occured within its target timeframe of three months, from when it was originally reported. She highlighted that she had been unable to insure her dog due to it having a “birth defect”, also raised other concerns with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the fence.
10. The complaint was reviewed at an appeal meeting to which the resident was invited, but was unable to attend. Subsequently, the landlord issued its final response on 7 April 2022. It advised the resident that whilst it had a duty to repair the fence, the purpose of the fence was to provide a boundary to the resident’s home and not to ensure that the garden was safe for dogs and children. It said the dog’s safety was the resident’s responsibility and it did not consider that the length of time to repair the gate was directly related to the injuries sustained by the dog, but that it had acknowledged that it had failed in the service it provided the resident. It noted the £400 compensation already offered, adequately reflected the inconvenience caused by its delay to replace the gate.
11. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she still believed the landlord was liable for her dog’s injuries, and therefore liable for the costs she had incurred to treat these. To resolve the complaint, she wanted the landlord to reimburse her the full vet costs she incurred, and to issue a written apology for the stress and anxiety the situation caused her and her family.

Assessment and findings

12. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to boundary walls, gates, and fences at the resident’s home, if they exist at the start of the tenancy or are later erected by it.
13. The landlord has a compensation policy. It states that its offers of compensation reflect goodwill, and are not an acceptance of any legal liability. It outlines amounts it will pay depending on the severity of its service failures. It defines extensive disruption as a very high level of service failure, where there has been “numerous missed opportunities to resolve the problem”. It states these instances cause “a significant level of inconvenience to the customer over an extended period of time”. For these instances it will pay compensation up to £300. It also outlines that it has the discretion to consider higher amounts on a case-by-case basis.
14. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine liability for injury to the resident’s dog or to decide on allegations of negligence. These are legal terms which would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. The role of this Service is to determine if the landlord acted reasonably in line with its policies and procedures, and whether it has offered appropriate remedies in recognition of any failings. The resident should consider seeking legal advice if she wishes to pursue the issue of liability further.
15. The landlord classified the works as planned maintenance, although its policy does not give a specific timeframe for these repairs. The usual standard amongst social landlords is ninety days. In this case, it is not disputed that the landlord considerably exceeded what would be a reasonable timeframe in the circumstances, to resolve the issue (replacing the gate eight months after it was initially reported).
16. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that it failed to initially respond to the resident’s report, delayed in arranging an inspection and in subsequently completing the replacement. Although the resident’s account indicates that the delays were in a small part due to her personal circumstances and availability, the landlord appropriately accepted overall responsibility for the delays and that its communication with the resident during this period was lacking. It was particularly appropriate for the landlord to recognise that it “should have acted more proactively to bring forward and complete the work sooner”, given that it had taken five months to inspect the issue. The landlord appropriately apologised for its service falling below its usual standards, and expressed empathy towards the situation regarding the resident’s dog.
17. The evidence shows that the landlord appropriately considered the resident’s request for reimbursement, and utilised its complaints process to set out its reasons for not agreeing to it. Its explanation that it considered gating and fencing to provide a boundary to the property, was reasonable in the circumstances. In information provided to this Service, the resident disputed that the gate was a boundary gate. Nonetheless, there was no obligation on the landlord to provide fencing or gating for the purpose of securing dogs or children within the property, which was the resident’s primary concern. Whilst it is appreciated that the resident has provided a reasonable explanation for why she was unable to gain pet insurance for her dog, the landlord was correct in advising her to make a claim in this manner in the first instance.
18. The Ombudsman considers that the £400 offered by the landlord is sufficient redress and proportionate to the inconvenience and distress the resident would have experienced as a result of its considerable delay to complete the gate replacement and its poor communication. The landlord has appropriately acted in accordance with its policy, and used its discretion, as it made an of offer of compensation which exceeded the maximum amount recommended by its guidelines. The amount it offered is also in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (available on our website) for instances where there has been failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy, for example to address repairs, but where there has been no apparent permanent impact on the complainant.
19. Whilst it is understandable that the resident has found the situation distressing, the landlord has demonstrated that ultimately, it took reasonable steps to put things right. There was a failure in service, but the landlord subsequently took the opportunity of its complaints process to investigate the resident’s concerns, confirm its position, and adequately redress its failings by completing the repairs, offering its apologies and appropriate compensation. The landlord also explained the steps it would take to improve its service going forward. This showed that the landlord committed to learning from its mistakes, in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

21. The landlord to pay the £400 offered in its final response, (within four weeks of this report) if it has not already done so already.