Thurrock Council (202118463)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118463

Thurrock Council

12 July 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 information provided to the resident concerning a  repair which was charged to the resident.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
3. On 25 October 2021, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord, in regards to a repair that occurred in June 2021. The resident stated that in June 2021, whilst decorating his property, he accidentally shattered a glass pane in the property. The resident was made aware that the repair would be considered ‘rechargeable’ (charged to the resident) and therefore he signed a rechargeable repair form. However, the resident was unhappy that he had received a recharge cost of £110.18. The resident stated that he did not receive a quote for the work prior to its completion, and if he had done so then he could have refused the repair or budgeted for the payment. The resident also felt that the invoice sent to him was sent ‘out of the blue, four months later’ and was ‘heartless’.
4. On 8 November 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. The landlord provided the resident with a breakdown of the costs incurred, this was comprised of:
   1. £9.75 for the inspection of the glass pane and ensuring it was safe.
   2. £100.43 for the supply and installation of a new glass pane.
5. The landlord stated that the resident signed a recharge liability acceptance form, and there was no evidence to suggest that the resident disagreed with the recharge at the time. It stated it also did not have records of the resident requesting a quote for the recharge works. However, if the resident requested a quote, it would have added a note to the repair request for a quote to be provided. The landlord stated that, whilst it aims to provide a quote to residents, it is not always possible as costs can change dependent on the work to be completed. However, the landlord stated it had spoken to its contractors and reminded them where possible to inform residents of charges prior to the repair. In relation to the recharge invoice being ‘out of the blue’, the landlord stated that it completes post work checks, which can mean that a recharge invoice may not be provided straightaway. The landlord also stated that on 25 October 2021, it emailed the resident to inform him to put the payment requests on hold, due to the dispute concerning the charges.
6. On the same day, the resident requested for his complaint to be escalated. He stated that he had not been provided with a quote prior to the repair, despite requesting one. He found the cost of £110.18 was not ‘reasonable’ for the work completed. The resident also raised concerns that he had not received any email from the landlord, informing him that the payments were on hold or to contact the landlord. The resident stated that the landlord should change its policy, to ensure that quotes are provided to residents prior to repairs being completed.
7. On 14 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that he had received a final warning notice for the recharge payment. The resident found this to be ‘inflammatory’. The resident was also unhappy that individual staff members did not respond to his queries, and commented that the staff members felt ‘too big’ to respond to him.
8. On 10 December 2021, the landlord issued its final response to the complaint. It stated that after further investigation, it found that the resident
9. did not receive communication regarding a pause in payments, due to a spelling error in the email address. It stated that no error message was received, so it remained unaware that he did not receive this communication. It assured the resident that had it received an error message, it would have contacted the resident in a different form. The landlord apologised for this error. The landlord also informed the resident, that when a complaint is made, it is not usual for individual staff members to provide responses to the resident, as a complaint is in progress. The landlord informed the resident, that it is not always possible to provide residents with quotes for the work, as it can vary due to the nature of the repair. The landlord acknowledged that the resident felt that the final notice letter was ‘inflammatory’ and stated it would see if any changes to the language could be made.
10. The resident referred this matter to this Service on 7 January 2021. As a resolution the resident wanted confirmation that the landlord had changed its policy, so that all rechargeable repairs receive a quote prior to the repair being completed.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

11. The landlord’s rechargeable repairs policy states that, if residents require a repair that has come about through breakage or neglect, the landlord will inform residents at the earliest possible moment, the cost of the repair. If the resident does not accept the charge, the repair will not take place unless it is assessed as  being dangerous. Residents can undertake repairs themselves, as long as it is to a standard acceptable to the landlord.

Assessment

12. In this case, the resident is unhappy that he was not provided with a quote before repairs to a glass pane was completed. As per the landlord’s policy, a quote should be provided to residents at the earliest moment. The stated in its stage one complaint response that, ‘on occasions, it is not known what the full cost will be at the time of the work order being raised or the appointment being attended as this will be dependent on the exact level of works confirmed as required and having been completed’. Therefore, the landlord has provided a reasonable explanation, as to why a quote could not be issued at the time of attending the property.
13. The resident also felt that the subsequent invoice four months later was ‘out of the blue’. The landlord provided an explanation in its stage one response that, prior to invoicing residents for rechargeable repairs, it will undertake checks to review the work completed and ensure the charges are correct. This is a reasonable explanation as to why the charges were not invoiced immediately. The landlord did also apologise for any inconvenience caused to the resident, for this process. Therefore, this has resolved the complaint satisfactorily, in this Service’s opinion.
14. The resident also raised concerns regarding poor communication. This is in relation to the landlord emailing an incorrect email address. The landlord has provided a reasonable explanation as to why this correspondence was not received, and stated that, should it have w received an error message, it would have contacted the resident in an alternative manner. The landlord has apologised for this error and an apology is reasonable under the circumstances to resolve this aspect of the complaint.
15. This Service does appreciate the resident’s concerns about not being provided a quotation prior to the repair work, and the concerns regarding affordability. However, the landlord has acted within its policy and provided a reasonable explanation, as to why on occasions, quotes may not be provided prior to the repair being completed.

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the information it provided to the resident concerning a rechargeable repair.

Recommendation

17. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its recharges policy for repairs to make it clearer under what circumstances it may not be able to provide a quote prior to undertaking a rechargeable repair.