Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (202125324)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125324

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

6 January 2023

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:
   1. Decision to recharge the resident for a door replacement.
   2. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a local authority. He has resided at the property since 2016.
3. In November 2021, the landlord attended the resident’s property and identified that he had painted his fire door. The resident was informed that this voided the warranty of the fire door, and it could not be assured that the door remained fire resistant as the paint had not been tested in line with its fire safety regulations. Therefore, the landlord required the door to be replaced under its recharge policy, to ensure the door was fire compliant.
4. In December 2021, the resident received a final demand letter from the landlord’s legal representatives in relation to the door recharge, requesting an immediate payment of £807.06.
5. In January 2022, the resident subsequently raised a complaint about receiving the final demand letter as he believed that he should not be charged until the door was installed. The resident also stated that he had not been informed he was unable to paint the door previously, so therefore assumed he was able to do so. In addition, the resident provided the landlord with an independent fire safety assessment, in which the door was shown to be safe, and the paint had not affected the safety of the door in the event of a fire. He requested for this to be considered by the landlord in its complaint response.
6. The landlord issued its complaint response to the resident, where it stated that he had been provided a leaflet during the installation of the door which stated that the door should not be painted. It acknowledged that the independent survey deemed the door as safe but informed the resident that the warranty of the door had been invalidated by the paint which overrode any independent report provided. Therefore, the door required replacing at a cost to the resident.
7. The resident referred the matter to this Service on 1 August 2022, as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to recharge him for the replacement door, despite the evidence he provided. As a resolution, the resident does not want the door to be replaced by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures.

8. The landlord’s fire safety leaflets state that residents must not paint the door or doorframe.
9. The landlord’s recharge policy states, where appropriate, it will charge for repairs which have not resulted from fair wear and tear. If residents do not consider the charges as fair, they have the right to appeal against any costs imposed.

The landlord’s decision to recharge the resident for a door replacement

10. As per the landlord’s fire-safety leaflet residents should not paint the door or doorframe due to safety regulations. Therefore, the landlord was reasonable in informing the resident that he had acted contrary to the advice issued and the door would need to be replaced.
11. The landlord’s recharge policy states that it will charge residents for repairs which have not resulted from fair wear and tear. As the resident painted his own door, this would not be classified as fair wear and tear. This means the landlord acted was entitled to seek to recharge the resident for the cost of a replacement door as the damage occurred as a result of the resident’s own actions. The landlord’s approach was in line with its policy obligations.
12. In addition, upon being presented with the independent survey from the resident, the landlord contacted the manufacturer and installer of the fire door to enquire if this would re-instate the warranty on the door. However, the manufacturer advised it could not guarantee the safety of the door despite the independent survey. The landlord treated the resident fairly by considering the survey he had provided, and it acted reasonably by seeking further information from the door manufacturer as part of its enquiries. Having carried out a pertinent investigation, the landlord obtained information on which it could base its decision.  
13. The outcome the resident advised he sought is for the landlord not to replace the door as he considered he has proven it to be “safe”. As the landlord stated in its stage two complaint response, an independent survey would not necessarily prove the door is safe. As such, the landlord was entitled to rely upon its experts’ opinion that the door requires replacement. The landlord also informed the resident that the issue was surrounding the warranty of the door, and this had been voided as a result of the door being painted. Therefore, while the landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging and considering the report the resident submitted, ultimately its position that the door needed to be replaced as the warranty had been invalidated was reasonable. From the information seen, it also acted appropriately when communicating this to the resident.
14. It is acknowledged that the resident stated he did not receive a leaflet which stated he should not paint the door. However, the landlord has stated that one was provided to every resident and the installing contractor has also indicated that it delivered a leaflet to every resident in the building. While there are conflicting accounts as to whether the resident did receive a leaflet, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to establish that the landlord’s contractor failed to deliver one. In the absence of any formal evidence that the resident did not receive a leaflet advising him he should not paint the door, there were limited steps the landlord could have taken in this instance.
15. Additionally, it is noted the landlord’s ‘Repairs and Improvements’ leaflet, provided to tenants at the start of their tenancies, asks residents to not “paint or apply any other kind of coating to any uPVC window frames or doors as this can be a fire risk.” It further advises that the landlord will charge residents for the cost of any replacements should they be necessary. This would have applied to the resident’s new fire door, described as being a “uPVC Fire Door” on the works order when it was installed. Evidence available suggests the landlord took reasonable steps to a publicize its position that the door should not be painted, and its messaging was consistent across its published policies and leaflets. 
16. It is also acknowledged that the resident felt that he was deprived of his right to an independent and impartial review of his complaint during the appeals process, as he had received final demand letters for the door payment, meaning the landlord had already decided to replace the door despite any evidence he may have presented. In its stage one response the landlord acknowledged and accepted that this had been a failure in its service, and it apologised to the resident. This was an appropriate response. While it also informed the resident it had acted in-line with its recharge policy by charging him as soon as the repair was raised, it subsequently retracted the charge while it progressed his complaint through its complaints procedure. This was also an appropriate step to take in the circumstances and showed the landlord tried to put things right with the resident by using its discretion to operate outside of its stated policy in this instance.

Complaint handling.

17. The resident contacted the landlord to raise a complaint in January 2022. However, records show that this was not acknowledged by the landlord until 18 February 2022, over three weeks later. This was not appropriate, and the delay would have had additional impact on the resident as he was receiving final demands to pay for the door replacement during that period. The delay in initially acknowledging the complaint, for which the landlord does not appear to have provided an explanation, would have likely caused unnecessary distress and therefore amounted to service failure. The landlord should also have considered acknowledging the delay, and offering an apology, in its stage one response.
18. Once it acknowledged the resident’s complaint, the landlord appropriately advised that it was experiencing delays with its complaint handling due to an “unprecedented volume of requests to our service area”. It was good practice that the landlord attempted to manage the resident’s expectations regarding when he would receive a response and it appropriately provided a new timeframe, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, advising him it aimed to respond by 18 March 2022 “or as soon as possible”. Ultimately, the landlord issued its response on 16 March 2022, inside its amended target time.
19. However, due to the failure to acknowledge the resident’s complaint promptly, and the initial delay in progressing the complaint through its complaint procedures, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience this would have caused.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to recharge the resident for a door replacement.
    2. Service failure by the landlord regarding how it handled the resident’s complaint.

Orders

21. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the delays in its complaint handling. This should be paid within four weeks of the date of this report and the landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance.

Recommendations

22. The landlord should consider reviewing its complaints procedure, which states it will provide residents with a response at stage one within 20 working days. It should consider bringing its procedures in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which states landlord’s should ensure that they respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days.