Magenta Living (202110935)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110935

Magenta Living

15 January 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 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 handling repairs to the resident’s front door and the communal front door, and the removal of the concrete canopy for the block.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a breakdown of the cost of the work.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s “S20 consultation on major works” document confirms that it will issue a first notice of intention to leaseholders in respect to major work, who will have 30 days to raise any observations to the proposed work. This will then be followed up with the issue of a statement of estimates of costs to leaseholders, who will have an additional 30 days to raise any further observations. The landlord should also make the proposal available for viewing by leaseholders.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder, with the landlord owning the freehold for the property.

Summary of events

On 27 April 2020, the landlord issued a notice of intention to carry out improvement work to the building, which included the replacement of the front door to the resident’s property and communal front doors, and the removal of the concrete canopy on the estate.
The resident subsequently responded to the landlord to raise her observations on the proposed schedule. In respect to her front door being replaced, she wanted a partially glazed door to allow for natural light to enter her property. The landlord confirmed that she would have the option of a small, glazed pane in her new front door, and that it would have a letterbox for the direct delivery of mail as it would be removing the communal post boxes from the building. The resident asked whether the landlord would replace the concrete canopy with an alternative, to which the landlord confirmed that it would not be fitting a replacement.
On 2 October 2020, the landlord issued a statement of estimated costs to the resident in relation to its proposed works. It included estimated quotes from two contractors for the completion of the work, which could be viewed at its office between 10am and 4pm Monday to Friday.
On 26 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to raise concerns that the existing communal entrance door had been damaged “yet again”, which made her feel “uncomfortable” contributing towards the work knowing that there would likely be further damage in the future which she would also need to pay for. The landlord responded on 29 May 2021, to explain that the work would be going ahead, and request that the resident report any concerns over vandalism and anti-social behaviour for it to investigate accordingly.
On 16 July 2021, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord in respect to the investment work it was due to carry out, including the replacement of her front door. She felt that as a leaseholder, she was entitled to see copies of tenders, costings and samples and photographs of the materials; despite requesting this information, she had received nothing. She was also disappointed that although it had visited her property earlier that day, the landlord did not provide any samples of the materials it would be using for the works.
On 19 July 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that the resident had raised concerns that the work to fit the new communal door had not been carried out as scheduled that day.
On 22 July 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that the resident had raised concerns that it had started the work to remove the concrete canopy within the block that day without having notified her in advance; she said she needed advance notice so she could make alternative arrangements, as the noise would prevent her from working. Additionally, she raised concerns over the dust generated from the work, and the presence of asbestos in the building.
On 22 July 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it had spoken with the resident and agreed to rearrange its schedule to carry out the noisy work when she was away from the property. It also confirmed that it had notified the residents of other blocks of its proposed schedule of works.
On 26 July 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that the resident had called to express disappointment that the work to remove the concrete canopy had not been carried out. This was because the contractor had been unable to source the machinery needed to complete the work.
On 27 July 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:
1. It explained that it had issued her with a notice of intention to carry out the work to replace her front door in April 2020, and it had responded to her observations on the proposed work. On 2 October 2020, it had provided two estimates for the proposed work in its statement of estimates and had made these reasonably available to her. It apologised for being unable to provide the samples during its visit on 16 July 2021, and agreed to send these to her.
2. The fitting of the new communal door had not been carried out as the landlord had identified a potential asbestos issue. As a result, it would be testing all blocks within the estate before proceeding with the proposed work.
3. The landlord apologised for not informing the resident in advance regarding the removal of the concrete canopy within the block. It had rearranged this work to be less disruptive to her; however, the contractor could not obtain the required machinery, for which it apologised. In respect to her concerns over the presence of asbestos and the dust generated from the work, it explained that it had tested the area and it had tested negative for asbestos, and that its machines collect most of the dust from the work.
4. It had also sought to learn from her complaint, and had informed other residents of the schedule for the work it would be carrying out.
On 28 July 2021, the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She remained unhappy as although the landlord had provided her with the statement of estimates in respect to the proposed work, it had not provided her with a breakdown of her cost towards this work. Furthermore, it had sent her the options for her new front door, and there was no option for a partially glazed door. To resolve her complaint, she wanted the landlord to provide her with a breakdown of the costs she would incur following the proposed work, for the date this work will begin, and to have the option of a partially glazed front door.
On 5 August 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it informed the resident that it would be unable to offer a partially glazed front door, as it was concerned about future maintenance issues and compliance to fire regulations. It further informed her that the work to replace the front doors in the estate would begin on 9 August 2021.
On 6 August 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it completed the work to remove the concrete canopy.
On 12 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to raise concerns over the chemicals used by the contractor to clean the doors, which produced “toxic” fumes which had impacted hers and her mother’s health.
On 12 August 2021, the contractor emailed the landlord to confirm that it had received a report from the resident over the chemicals it had used when installing the new doors. As a result, it would suspend its scheduled work at her property, pending the resolution of her complaint.
On 20 August 2021, the landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:
1. It did not consider her request to warrant the escalation of her complaint, as no new or significant information had been provided. However, it wished to address the points raised in her final stage complaint on 28 July 2021.
2. In respect to her front door, it confirmed that as she had chosen her new front door from the available options, it had started the work on 9 August 2021; it had kept residents informed of the work, and would write individually to inform residents of the date their door would be fitted.
3. It apologised for failing to notify her of the date it would begin work to remove the concrete canopy, which was due to the contractor having to self-isolate. It was unable to offer a completion date due to the level of work being undertaken across several blocks; however, it would provide residents with updates on the work, and display the schedule of works in the communal area of the building.
4. In response to her request for a breakdown of the costs she would incur following the work, it explained that the exact cost could not be established until the work was complete; however, it calculated her contribution to be £3,860 for the improvement work and £36 for the paint and repair scheme it was currently running, based on the estimates it had.
On 24 September 2021, the landlord issued a further complaint response to the resident. It contained the same information as its earlier final stage complaint response on 20 August 2021, with the exception of the breakdown of the costs she would incur following the work; it had calculated her contribution to be £7,300 for the improvement work and £36 for the paint and repair scheme.
The resident subsequently referred her complaint to this Service. In respect to her front door, she remained dissatisfied that she had not been consulted on the work and associated cost of replacing the front doors on the estate, and strongly objected to it. Although it commenced this work within her estate, her door had still not been fitted. She was also disappointed at not having received advance notification of the work to remove the concrete canopy, and she did not consider the landlord’s explanation within its final stage complaint response to be acceptable. In respect to her request for a breakdown of her contribution for the proposed work, it had provided separate figures in its final stage complaint responses of 20 August and 24 September 2021, which caused uncertainty.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident’s concern over the chemicals used to clean the front doors when they were installed on the estate is outside of the scope of this investigation. This is because a separate complaint has been referred to this Service regarding this issue, and it will therefore be considered by this Service in a separate investigation in due course.

The landlord’s handling of the work to replace the resident’s front door and the communal front door, in addition to the removal of the concrete canopy within the block

The landlord was expected to notify the resident of its proposed improvement work on the resident’s estate and allow her the opportunity to raise any observations to the proposed work. If it subsequently planned to proceed with the work, it was obliged to provide the resident with a statement of estimates and allow her time to view the full proposal.
The landlord has evidenced that it had informed the resident of the proposed work on 27 April 2020. The resident had raised observations in respect to her front door, to which the landlord confirmed she would have the option of a partially glazed new front door as she had requested. The landlord followed up this notice by issuing a statement of estimates to the resident, and confirmed the availability of its full proposal at its office for viewing purposes, in accordance with its obligations.
The landlord had agreed to offer the resident the option of a partially glazed new front door, following her objections to the proposed work on 29 April 2020. However, it later determined that it was unable to offer this due to concerns over future maintenance issues and compliance to fire regulations, and it explained this to the resident on 5 August 2021. Although it would understandably be disappointing for the resident that the landlord was unable to ultimately honour her request for a partially glazed front door, there is no evidence that it had intentionally misled her in this regard. It explained the reasons for being unable to offer this, which was a reasonable response to her concerns. The landlord would not be expected to go against advice it had received regarding fire regulations and therefore it is not obliged to offer the resident a partially glazed door at this stage.
The resident has expressed concern to this Service that her front door has yet to be fitted, despite the landlord having commenced this work on 9 August 2021. It is acknowledged that the landlord was carrying out additional improvements to the whole estate, and therefore it may be unable to provide precise timescales for the completion of work to a specific property. However, if possible, the landlord should provide the resident with a broad timescale for her new front door to be fitted, unless this work has already been completed.
The resident has raised concerns regarding the work to remove the concrete canopy within the block on 22 July 2021. She said the landlord had not provided sufficient notice of the work, which caused difficulties with her working whilst the noisy work was being carried out. The landlord has evidenced its investigation into this, that after speaking with both the resident and the contractor, it agreed a suitable schedule for this work to be carried out while the resident was away from the property. This was reasonable as the landlord attempted to resolve the resident’s concerns. The contractor could not honour this agreement as it could not source the machinery it needed to complete the job. The delay this caused was beyond the landlord’s control and the work was subsequently completed on 6 August 2021.
During the landlord’s complaints procedure, the resident has also raised concerns over the dust generated during the work to remove the concrete canopy, and the possible presence of asbestos within the concrete. The landlord has evidenced that it had considered her concerns and responded appropriately in confirming that its machinery minimised dust during the works, and that it had already confirmed the area was free of asbestos before the work began.
In summary, the landlord has evidenced that it has acted in accordance with its policy in respect of the improvement works. It has responded accordingly to the resident’s concerns and has worked with the resident to change the schedule for the removal of the concrete canopy.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a breakdown of the cost of the work

In line with the landlord’s obligations under its section 20 consultation document, it was obliged to provide a statement of estimates for the proposed improvement work and allow the resident access to view the supporting information. The landlord had acted in line with its obligations by providing estimates to the resident following her complaint.
The landlord had provided a breakdown of the resident’s contribution to the cost of the repair works in its final stage complaint response on 20 August 2021. However, it had revised its calculations of this figure in its further complaint response on 24 September 2021. It was reasonable for the landlord to have provided more accurate figures to her once it was aware that its earlier calculations were not correct. However, it would have been helpful for it to provide an explanation for the change in the figures, and how it had calculated the revised total contribution. It is recommended that the landlord provide this information to the resident. The difference in amounts would have understandably caused confusion to the resident, however the landlord had explained that any figures it gave her for the cost of the work would be estimates and it could not confirm the actual cost until all the works had been completed. Therefore, the calculations were always subject to change. For this reason, the landlord is not obliged to compensate the resident for the confusion caused by her receiving two different sets of figures in response to her request for the estimated costs of her contribution to the works.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. The landlord’s handling repairs to the resident’s front door and the communal front door, and the removal of the concrete canopy for the block.
2. Response to the resident’s request for a breakdown of the cost of the work.

Reasons

The landlord had acted in accordance with its obligations in respect to the proposed improvements work.
The landlord provided a breakdown of the estimated cost of the proposed work to the resident. The initial calculations were incorrect, so the landlord provided revised figures. The landlord made it clear that the costs were estimated and may be subject to change. The landlord was unable to provide the exact costs until the work was fully completed.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord write to the resident to:
1. Explain the reasons for its calculation on 20 August 2021, and further explain how it arrived at the figure quoted on 24 September 2021.
2. Offer a broad timescale for the completion of the work to replace her front door unless this has now been completed.