Anchor Hanover Group (202002338)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002338

Anchor Hanover Group

24 February 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:
1. The landlord’s response to repair reports to the:
  1. Kitchen and cooker hood.
  2. Doorbell.
2. The landlord’s handling of reports of staff conduct.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction;
1. The landlord’s handling of the reports of staff conduct.
Paragraph 39(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings.
The resident notified the Ombudsman in December 2020 and the landlord in January 2021 that there were incidents that previously occurred resulting in the landlord taking him to court. The resident felt the landlord had victimised him and not handled the situation correctly. The resident advised the case was dismissed due to the judge noting that the landlord had not considered the resident’s disability. As such, the court considered the landlord’s conduct (staff conduct), and the Ombudsman will not investigate matters that were presented as part of the hearing.
With regards to the resident’s comments about the landlord not considering his disability when handling the issues and that he was discriminated against, the Ombudsman is not in a position to make a binding decision with regards to whether the resident’s claims are substantiated or not. Our position here is in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme which provides that: ‘the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure’.
The law protects against individuals being unjustly or prejudicially treated because of different characteristics and as such determining such actions which amount to discrimination, is better suited for the courts. This is as the Ombudsman is unable to make a legally binding decision on such matters. In order to pursue this aspect of the complaint, the Ombudsman advises that the resident seek independent legal advice or alternatively, speak with the Equality and Human Rights Commission regarding his concerns and how best to proceed with this matter.
The resident has also raised concerns regarding the conduct of the landlord’s location manager and has referred to incidents which occurred in the past. Records show that a complaint was investigated by the Ombudsman under case reference 201713999 regarding staff conduct. As the service has already investigated the resident’s concerns regarding earlier staff conduct, the Ombudsman will not be considering this matter again. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(o) of the Scheme, which states ‘the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon’.
Following the final response, the resident has referred to other incidents such as a repair to the wall on the staircase which was not included as part of his original complaint. The resident would need to raise any further issues which were not mentioned as part of the original complaint with the landlord first, in order for the matters to be considered and investigated by it first. The resident is advised that the landlord may not consider events which were not raised as a complaint within a reasonable period from when they occurred.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a one-bedroom first floor flat and the landlord is the freeholder.
The resident’s records indicate he is deaf and therefore all communication is to be made via email.
Section 4.4 of the Leaseholder Agreement states the resident must keep the interior of the dwelling and the fixtures and fittings therein (except the separate heating installation and the gas and water pipes, drains and electric cables and wires within the dwelling) in good repair and decorative order (damage by fire or other insured risk excepted save where the insurance is rendered void or voidable or the insurance money is irrecoverable by reason of any act or default of the lessee) and in particular, to redecorate the dwelling hereby demised to a reasonable standard specified by the landlord at least once every five years and in the last three months of the tenancy howsoever determined and to yield up the dwelling on the determination of the lease in such good repair and decorative order.
Section 5.1 of the Leaseholder Agreement states the landlord is required to maintain, repair, decorate and renew (i) the main structure of the estate (including the dwelling) and the roof(s), foundations and exterior thereof (ii) all (if any) main entrances, passages, landings, lifts, staircases, corridors and other parts of the estate used in common by the lessee with the owners and occupiers of the dwellings in the estate and (iii) the gas and water pipes, drains and electric cables and wires under or upon the dwelling or the remainder of the estate or part thereof.
The landlord’s Complaint Policy states the landlord will acknowledge receipt of complaints within one working day. The stage 2 response will be provided within 14 calendar days.

Summary of events

On 23 October 2020 the resident contacted the landlord as his cooker hood had fallen from the wall, damaging his cooker. The landlord arranged for an electrical engineer to attend the same day to make safe the electrical connection on the cooker hood.
In January 2021 the resident emailed this Service explaining that the main doorbell had not been working for months however, his doorbell was working due to him requiring a specialised doorbell with a flashing light as he is deaf. The resident advised that the landlord had put a notice on the front door stating the bells were not working, however his doorbell was working. The note stated that people should either use the device button on the door or knock loudly. The resident explained as a result of the note, people who are delivering to him were not using his doorbell which worked fine, and he would not be able to hear anyone knocking due to his hearing impairment.
On 8 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord advising he had communicated to them previously about his cooker hood falling from the wall which subsequently damaged his hob to such an extent that it could not be used. The resident advised that the landlord’s location manager had arranged for the electrical engineer to attend the property to make safe the hood. He noted he had been informed no further work would be undertaken as the damage caused was his responsibility, so the engineer did not check the hob or make it safe. The resident was unhappy as he felt this was a structural matter and his insurers had agreed and he had subsequently requested confirmation from the landlord that it was not liable in this instance. The landlord requested photos, which the resident provided of the wall, the hob and cooker hood, to ascertain the damage. The resident was unhappy as in the meantime, he was left without means to cook. He contacted his insurer about the matter, and it agreed to replace the hob. The resident requested the landlord reimburse him for the hob and repair the wall and the cooker hood.
The resident sent further chaser emails in February 2021 to the landlord as he had not had an acknowledgement regarding his previous emails and complaints. The resident also raised concerns about problems with the main doorbell at the property that had not been working for two months and advised the landlord had not tried to get this fixed. The resident advised the night before, the emergency services attended the property for another tenant, and were unable to ring the doorbell to the tenant’s property. The paramedics had to ring the resident’s doorbell which is on a separate system, and he was required to come down the stairs with difficulty, to give them access. The resident explained he had put a note on the front door to advise that his doorbell was working, and this is why the emergency services were able to gain access. The resident also referred to an incident in which his doctor had difficulties gaining access to the property due to the doorbell issues. The resident referred to the landlord as incompetent.
On 9 March 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s emails to confirm its position around the events relating to his cooker hood falling from the wall. It advised that it had informed him that it was his responsibility to arrange the repairs and or any replacement. The landlord confirmed that following the residents report, an electrical engineer was sent out the same day to make the electrical connection to the hood safe. From the landlord’s perspective it had completed its duty of care to the resident and the case was closed. The landlord confirmed the resident then contacted it in February 2021 requesting an update with the case. As a result of the contact the landlord made enquiries with its insurance team to see if any of the damage could be covered by its insurers. The insurers suggested to the landlord that it may be able to cover the cost of the repair to the wall and the damaged cooker, but it would need to send out a representative to attend and assess this before any commitment could be made. The landlord explained that subsequently, the resident informed it that he had already replaced the hob through his own insurance. As a result, the landlord cancelled the insurance assessor’s appointment and arranged for the repair to the wall to be completed as a gesture of goodwill in order for the resident to arrange to have his cooker hood replaced or reinstalled. The landlord reminded the resident regarding the tone of his correspondence and advised it reserved the right not to respond to issues or complaints that have been responded to previously, or where the tone and content of his correspondence was rude or aggressive.
The resident sent further emails to the landlord in March 2021 to advise that it had been six months and the landlord had done nothing to assist him. The resident requested the landlord reimburse him for the hob as promised and to have the wall repaired. The resident was also unhappy that the landlord had suggested that it was its idea to cut of the electric supply to the fan when he had to press the location manager for this action to be taken.
A job report dated 25 March 2021 has been provided. The contractor was instructed to repair the damaged plaster board wall in the kitchen which occurred after the cooker hood fell. The notes indicate the contractor filled the holes as advised. The contractor explained he was unable to advise the resident on how best to fit the cooker hood due to his hearing difficulties. The contractor spoke to the landlord to advise the resident had plasterboard fixings in before that gave way and suggested the resident had the cooker hood reinstalled using toggle bolts.
The landlord provided a formal response to the resident on 1 April 2021 following communication from this Service regarding the complaint. It apologised to the resident for the delay in its response, explaining that the issue around the cooker hood was still in the process of being reviewed. The landlord referred back to its correspondence of March 2021 regarding its position relating to the cooker hood falling off the wall. The landlord reiterated its actions and explained as the resident’s own contractors fitted the cooker hood, it was only its responsibility to make good the wall which had now been done. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns that the repair was not done correctly however its contractor had confirmed that provided the resident used the correct fitting for the fan, the wall was structurally sound, and it had nothing further to add to this issue which it considered now closed.
With regards to the doorbell, the landlord explained in its response that the doorbell problems were first reported to it by another tenant on 30 November 2020 and the following day its door entry contractor and engineer attended to investigate the issue. The landlord explained that residents could not hear when someone was calling but the trade button was still working, and tenants were still able to use their keys to gain access to the property. It advised that the engineer who attended identified a part that needed replacing and advised it would be ordered and installed when received. The landlord explained the reason for the delay was due to contractor supply issues and problems with the delivery. It confirmed that doorbell was finally fixed on 22 February 2021. The landlord noted that the resident had a separate specialised doorbell, which was still working when the main doorbell was not. The landlord noted that the doorbell issue was only raised by the resident in February 2021. The landlord also advised the resident that the note indicating all the doorbells were not working was put up by another resident and for clarity, it provided him with a picture of the sign that was posted on the door by the location manager. The landlord also reminded the resident about its concerns with the tone of his correspondence.
The resident responded in April 2021 and was unhappy that it took six months for the landlord to send its contractor to repair the wall which he did not feel was done correctly. He advised the contractor repaired the wall with mastic rather than hard filler and the first filler came out, resulting in the contractor having to return to do the job. The resident provided pictures of how the contractor left the wall and was unhappy that he did not rub down the sections repaired or repaint it to match the rest of the wall. He explained when he queried the work, the contractor advised him that he had been told to ‘just fill the holes’. He was unhappy the landlord would not reimburse him for the hob as he advised he only contacted his own insurer as the landlord was taking too long to resolve the matter. The resident mentioned that he had previously enquired about when the properties were last painted, however he did not receive a response from the landlord. He asked the landlord to confirm whether it was going to leave the wall as is or if it was going to repair the wall further in order for him to reinstall the cooker hood.
On 30 April 2021 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. The landlord explained following the review, it was satisfied that all the points were considered in the first response and therefore it had nothing to add to the issues raised. The landlord did provide clarity to the resident with regards to the quality of work by the contractor. It confirmed it had instructed the contractor to visit and make good the wall, and it was the contractor who advised the level of work needed. The landlord attached a copy of the contractor’s report to the resident.
The landlord referred the resident to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman if he was still unhappy and also provided details of the First-tier Tribunal (property chamber). It also referred the resident to the Leaseholder Advisory Service for free legal advice.

Assessment and findings

Evidence indicates that the resident upgraded his kitchen and had his own contractors install the cooker hood. In line with the Leaseholder Agreement, the resident would be responsible for any fixtures and fittings, and the decoration of the interior of the property. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to say that the repairs were the resident’s responsibility. In line with the Leaseholder Agreement the landlord was not obligated to redecorate the section of the wall that it repaired and whilst the Service acknowledges the resident’s disabilities, he remains responsible for arranging for his own contractor to redecorate the section where the hood came away from the wall.
The Ombudsman notes that the contractor advised the landlord on how the cooker hood should be correctly installed as he was unable to advise the resident of this. It is unclear whether the landlord communicated this advice to the resident following the contractor’s visit and it is not mentioned within the complaint response. Doing so would have been helpful to the resident, however the Ombudsman would expect that a suitably qualified person installing any fixtures would have the relevant knowledge and expertise when carrying out the installation.
In March 2021, the landlord confirmed that it agreed to repair the wall as a gesture of goodwill however, later, it advised that its only responsibility was to repair the wall. These statements make it unclear whether the landlord has confirmed responsibility for the wall or whether the repair was done as a gesture of goodwill. Although the Leaseholder Agreement states the landlord is responsible for maintaining the main structure of the property, there is no evidence to suggest that there was a defect with the wall itself but rather with the way the installation of the cooker hood was completed. In any event, the leaseholder would be responsible for internal decorations.
The resident was unhappy with the repair to the wall. It is reasonable that the landlord would rely on its qualified contractors to advise it on what work is required to repair the wall, particularly with regards to what substance was used to fill the holes. As the only fault with the wall were the sections where the hood was connected to the wall, it is not unreasonable that these were the only sections repaired. The resident advised that the contractor had to return to re-do the work as it was not done correctly initially, however the Ombudsman has not seen any records to support this assertion.
The resident advised that following a discussion with his own insurer, it agreed to replace his hob. As such the landlord did not proceed to deal with the matter through its own insurance, although its offer to do so was reasonable. Where damage is caused to possessions, insurance claims are best suited to remedy the matter. Where the resident’s insurance provider processed the claim, it is deemed that it accepted there was no fault by the landlord. It would have been expected that the insurance company disputed the claim if there was an issue of liability. Given that the claim was paid, it was also reasonable for the landlord not to pursue a claim through its own insurer.
Following another resident’s reports of the faulty doorbell in November 2020, the landlord sent out an engineer the following day. In the final response, the landlord has acknowledged and apologised for the delay in getting the main doorbell repaired and confirmed feedback has been given to its repairs team.
Whilst the resident raised concerns to this Service regarding problems with the main doorbell in January 2021, the evidence provided shows that the resident first mentioned this issue to the landlord in February 2021. In any event, the resident had his own doorbell and whilst I appreciate the inconvenience caused by the main doorbell fault when emergency services attended, the fault did not directly affect his own doorbell functionality and additionally, the note referring to all doorbells not working, was not posted by the landlord, so it cannot be held responsible for this.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that there was a delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s emails and updating the resident about the situation regarding his cooker hood falling from the wall. It is not clear that the landlord communicated its earlier decision that the matter was closed. The landlord also did not provide an explanation for the delay in responding to the resident’s emails. Regardless of the tone of the emails, the landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s emails with advice on next steps, alongside highlighting any issues in relation to his tone.
When the resident sent emails in February 2021, it was clear he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions. There is no correspondence provided to indicate that the landlord considered escalating the resident’s complaints at the time as it did not respond to his emails until March 2021. It was only when this Service was involved that it provided its first response.
There is no evidence to show that the resident’s complaints were acknowledged within 1 working day and it is clear there were delays in receiving the formal responses Whilst the landlord apologised for the delay in providing the resident’s final response and advised that this was due to the ongoing review of the wall repair issue, it would have been good practice for the landlord to have sent the resident a holding letter, prior to the final response to advise the resident of the reason for the delay and timescales on when it aimed to respond. However, the landlord failed to do so, and this amounted to service failure.
The resident requested information about when the properties were last painted however the landlord has not provided this neither has it provided a reason as to why this information has not been provided to the resident through the course of the complaint. The Service does not see a reason why this information cannot be given to the resident, particularly considering maintenance to the communal areas would be considered within his service charge.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s repair reports to the kitchen and cooker hood.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of faults with the doorbell.
In accordance with paragraph 39(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handing of his concerns about staff conduct is out of jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The Service agrees that it is reasonable that the landlord did not feel liable for repairing the damages caused when the cooker hood fell off the wall. This is because the resident had employed his own contractors to instal it during the redecoration of his kitchen and there were no structural defects with the wall it was attached to.
Although the resident has reported that the doorbell was not functioning for two months, there is no evidence to suggest that he had raised this issue prior to February 2021 in order for the landlord to update him on the progress of the repair. Furthermore, as the resident’s own doorbell was still working, the resident was not directly impacted by the faulty doorbell that affected other residents. The landlord has confirmed that the note that was put on the door suggesting all the doorbells were not working, was put by another resident and not the landlord, therefore, the service is unable to find service failure against the landlord for the inconvenience that this caused the resident.
The emails sent to the landlord from the resident, indicated that he was unhappy with the situation in February 2021, however the landlord only provided a first response in April 2021 following our communication. Although a majority of the residents complaint points were covered within the landlord’s final response, it did not address his concerns that he had requested information about when the property was last painted. Furthermore, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s emails that were sent at the beginning of February 2021 until March 2021, and it has not provided a reasonable explanation as to why it delayed in acknowledging or responding to the emails.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident:
1. £50 for the delay registering the resident’s complaint.
The landlord should provide the resident with information regarding when the property was last painted. If, for any reason it is unable to do this, the landlord should provide the resident with a clear reason why.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to ensure that it provides acknowledgments and/or responses to the resident’s email correspondence within a reasonable timescale, particularly as he is unable to reach it by phone due to his disability.