Incommunities Limited (202111130)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111130

Incommunities Limited

17 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 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 refusal to reimburse money the resident paid to decorate a property which she subsequently did not move into.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident was an existing tenant of the landlord and on 16 March 2021, she signed a new tenancy agreement with the landlord for an alternative property. The landlord identified that some repairs needed to be completed to the new property, including filling cracks in the ceilings and walls, replacing a bath panel, repairing a toilet leak, tiling in the bathroom and clearing the garden. The repairs were agreed with the resident and the landlord confirmed that the works would be scheduled for a later date after she moved in.
  3. On 18 March 2021, the resident paid for private contractors to complete jobs in the new property noted in an invoice as ‘ceiling and walls, skirting boards, doors and filling cracks’ amounting to £815 of repairs.
  4. On 22 March 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and stated that she no longer wanted to move into the new property due to the impact the move was having on the children and the resident’s mental health. The landlord agreed to cancel the new tenancy.
  5. On 23 March 2021, the landlord changed its records to account for this cancellation and noted that the resident remained a tenant of her current property with the landlord.
  6. On 20 April 2021, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the cost of the repairs she had undertaken to the new property which she had not moved into. She wanted the costs of the decoration repairs she had carried out reimbursed due to not going ahead with the tenancy.
  7. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 5 May 2021 stating that it had agreed to complete the repairs in the new property when the resident had signed the agreement. It did not have sufficient time to complete these repairs as the resident had cancelled the tenancy agreement after six days and had the repairs completed already, and therefore no compensation would be awarded.
  8. The resident asked for further escalation of the complaint on 10 May 2021 over the phone.
  9. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 21 May 2021 and said it would respond within ten working days.
  10. The landlord contacted the resident on 6 June 2021 and apologised for the delay in responding to her stage two complaint. It explained that the delay was due to the complexity of its investigation and advised an update would be given over the next ten days.
  11. The landlord issued a stage two, final response on 16 June 2021 and maintained its previous position. It found that the repairs were minor and would have been completed after the resident moved into the new property. It added that the property was not in breach of the landlord’s lettable standard when the resident had signed the new tenancy agreement. The landlord also advised that it was not responsible for decorating either the new or old property at the resident’s request, in line with the tenancy agreement.
  12. The resident referred the case to the Ombudsman on 13 August 2021 because she wanted to move to different property. She also requested compensation for the cost of the decoration work that she had completed on the new property prior to withdrawing from the tenancy. 

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s lettable standard policy states that the property should be at a reasonable standard when let, this includes being clean, safe, secure and in reasonable state of repair. The landlord should ensure that major structural works are completed before a resident moves in, ensure taps and plumbing are working and free from visible leaks and ensure that visible plaster work is in a satisfactory condition. The lettable standard policy also states that, in exceptional circumstances, the landlord may provide a decoration allowance/voucher and this will be provided when the tenancy agreement is signed.
  2. The new tenancy agreement which the resident signed states that the landlord would be responsible for repairs needed to the structure of the property, including the plaster, walls and skirting boards. The landlord would also be responsible for repairs needed to water pipes, toilets and baths. The resident would be responsible for the decoration of the internal parts of the property.
  3. The agreement also states that the resident would need to seek permission and written consent from the landlord before carrying out any improvement or alteration work to the property. The landlord is obliged to carry out certain repairs to the property but it is not required to make improvements at the resident’s request.
  4. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs should be carried out within 24 hours of being reported and for minor repairs they should be carried out within an average of 9 days after being reported. A minor repair is defined as a repair that can cause inconvenience but does not pose an immediate risk to a customer’s health and safety.

Scope of investigation

  1. It is noted that the resident requested to be moved into a different property in order to provide a resolution to her complaint. However, the Ombudsman would not order a landlord to move a resident as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority that the resident for rehousing. In general, the highest priority for rehousing is given to those facing homeless or fleeing domestic violence of severe anti-social behaviour.  However, it is recommended that the landlord should continue to support the resident with her request to transfer from her current property and discuss her options with her now that she has terminated her new tenancy, if it has not already done so. In view of this, this report will address the resident’s concerns in relation to the landlord’s response to her concerns about its refusal to reimburse her, and whether it responded to her concerns in a reasonable way.
  2. The resident said that she has suffered stress because of the landlord’s handling of the transfer process and her subsequent complaint and this has affected her mental health. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s comments, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced as a result of the landlord’s handling of the situation involving her property.

Assessment

  1. The resident has requested for a refund of the cost of the decoration works she completed at her new property before deciding she did not want to proceed with the tenancy. The landlord has advised that it would not refund the resident for this cost because she had not allowed enough time for the agreed works to be completed by the landlord before hiring a private contractor and then withdrawing from the tenancy. 
  2. The landlord’s lettable standard policy states that the property needs to be in a reasonable condition of repair when it is let to a new tenant. However, it is not uncommon for a landlord to complete some repairs after the resident moves in due to the extremely high demand for social housing and the need to provide housing as quickly as possible. In line with its lettable standard policy and good industry practice, the landlord would be expected to ensure the property was safe and clean before the resident moved in, although it might need some more minor repairs which could be scheduled after the resident moved in.
  3. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord should then arrange appointments with the resident and complete the repairs within the stipulated timeframe of nine days after being reported. However, because the resident decided to not go ahead with the tenancy at the new property on 22 March 2021, four working days after the commencement of the tenancy on 16 March 2021, the landlord was not given a sufficient amount of time in order to arrange and complete the repairs it had agreed to carry out.
  4. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had caused any unreasonable delays to the agreed repairs.  It is also likely that the cost of the landlord’s own contractors doing the work would have been less than the price charged by private contractors and therefore the landlord did not have the opportunity to minimise the cost by carrying out the work itself.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said that she viewed the property in November 2020 prior to signing the tenancy agreement. During this visit, the landlord was made aware of the repairs which needed to be completed to the property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s account, but we have not seen any evidence of what was discussed during this visit. Also, at this time landlords were generally prioritising urgent repairs due to the ongoing effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. During the months January-March 2021 there was a national lockdown in which most landlords were suspending all non-emergency repairs. The repair issues did not cause inconvenience to the resident until March 2021 when she was due to move into the property. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to delay the repair work until after she moved in, although it may have been aware that the repairs were needed following a visit in November 2020.
  6. Similarly, the landlord would not be expected to reimburse the resident for any decorative works carried out on 18 March 2021 because it would be the resident’s responsibility to decorate the property, as set out in the tenancy agreement. The evidence shows that the resident was provided with a paint voucher and filler to address hairline cracks in the plaster. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide a voucher, in line with its lettable standards policy to assist the resident with redecorating the property and the landlord was not obliged to do anything further with regards to the cost of redecoration.
  7. Some of the works which the resident requested such as a taller fence, the fitting of a shower and a new door would be regarded as improvements rather than repairs. The landlord is not required to carry out improvements in the property; it is only required to maintain it. In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord should not unreasonably deny tenants the opportunity to carry out improvements themselves but it can refuse to allow an improvement if it has a genuine reason for doing so. Tenants must seek permission for improvements in advance. The tenant would be responsible for the cost of carrying out improvements and maintaining them, although they may be entitled to compensation towards the cost of improvements once their tenancy ends.
  8. The landlord also acted appropriately in allowing the resident to cancel the new tenancy and remain in the current property. This meant the resident was able to avoid having to make a new claim for housing benefits which would have caused further disruption to her and her family.
  9. It is understandable that the resident did not want to go ahead with the tenancy, and the Ombudsman is not questioning her reasons for doing so; however, this in itself does not mean the landlord is obliged to reimburse her for the costs she incurred for carrying out repairs.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its refusal to reimburse money the resident paid to decorate a property which she subsequently did not move into.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s decision not to refund the resident for the decoration work she had carried out privately was reasonable. The landlord had previously agreed to complete the work but was not provided an opportunity to carry out the agreed actions prior to the resident arranging for the works to be completed herself and subsequently cancelling the new tenancy agreement.

Recommendation

31. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord continues to support the resident with her request to transfer from her current property and discusses her options with her now that she has terminated her new tenancy, if it has not already done so.