Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited (202016044)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016044

Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s disrepair reports relating to the bathroom.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The property is a three bedroom semi detached house, occupied by the resident following a mutual exchange in November 2020.
3. The Mutual Exchange Declaration Form signed by the resident states:
   1. Once the mutual exchange has been completed and repairs identified in the current address which are not a result of general wear and tear and deemed re-chargeable, these will be charged back to the outgoing resident.
   2. The incoming resident agrees that they have completed a visual inspection and are happy to proceed with the exchange, accepting the property as they have found it.
   3. The incoming resident understands that it is their responsibility to carry out an inspection of the property and to agree with the exchange if any works are required before exchanging.
   4. The incoming resident accepts  the property in its current condition and understands that a repair will only be carried out if it is required due to wear and tear.
4. The Repairs policy states the landlord will keep in repair and proper working order any installations including basins, sinks baths, toilets, flushing systems, waste pipes and tap washers. It will clear up after a repair – decoration will be left as close as possible to how it was before the work was done. The resident will be responsible for plugs and chains to wash basins, bath and kitchen sinks and resealing around sinks, showers baths and basins.
5. The policy notes for Mutual Exchanges these are conducted in accordance with the Mutual Exchange Policy. It notes residents moving home via a mutual exchange will be informed of any repairs that they will be required to accept liability for. Any other repairs arising after the mutual exchange has taken place will be dealt with under the provisions of the Repairs Policy.

Summary of events

6. On 19 November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord about the condition of the bathroom following the mutual exchange. The landlord noted that through mutual exchange, properties were accepted as is, however if the condition was so poor it would arrange a surveyor visit after the Covid-19 lockdown restrictions.
7. On 24 November, the landlord brought forward the inspection of the bathroom flooring. This was inspected on 1 December, following which a leak was identified under the bath and the landlord noted significant damage to the floor.
8. During December, the resident sought the outcome of the inspection and the landlord advised it would replace the flooring but would not replace the bath. It was also agreed that the resident would outline what other repairs were needed in the bathroom. The resident requested an improvement form to gain permission for alterations.
9. Due to the Covid-19 lockdown restrictions it was noted that the work to the flooring would be added to the backlog recovery plan where the landlord was allocating all non-urgent repairs based on the date they were logged. The resident was informed accordingly.
10. On 13 January 2021, the resident reported an issue with the shower hose, with the landlord noting this would be renewed and sprayed, again in line with back log work.
11. On 27 January, the resident formally complained that he had decorated the entire property but believed the bathroom was the landlord’s responsibility. He noted that following the surveyor visit it was found there had been a leak under the bath for a significant period of time and prior to the resident moving in. He noted that the flooring was rotten, and the landlord had agreed to replace this. He stated as the landlord had advised it would refit the old bath, he had requested to replace the bath and asked that the landlord install this. He explained he had been informed that any damage caused when installing the bath would be his responsibility. He stated damage would definitely be caused to the tiles and walls and therefore the landlord should replace the bath. He explained that there was rust and mould on the taps and sealing and the previous resident had hidden this with stickers. He asserted it was the landlord’s responsibility to replace the bath.
12. On 29 January, the landlord requested that the replacement flooring be logged as urgent in order to bring forward the works.
13. At the beginning of February, the resident chased an update on the works on several occasions and noted that he would complete these himself as the flooring was getting worse.
14. On 9 February, the landlord responded at stage 1 noting it had considered the photographic evidence submitted of the condition of the bath and could see that repairs had been raised for the flooring. It did not uphold the complaint, explaining that accepting a property via mutual exchange meant the property was accepted as seen and it was not responsible for alterations which were not essential. It noted it would not be replacing the bath, but he could seek permission to do so, and he would be expected to repair any damage which occurred during the installation.
15. On 10 February, the resident escalated his complaint. He noted that there would be damage to the bath when it was removed for the flooring to be replaced. He explained the bath panel had been broken by the landlord’s contractor who had to gain access to the leak. He noted he would buy a new bath but for the landlord to install this and if it was not paying for the replacement, it should replace the taps, waste, and plug which were rusted. He explained that the outgoing tenant had covered up the issues, so he was not aware at time of viewing the property.
16. On 11 February, the resident called to cancel the works noting it had taken too long and he would complete himself. He queried when he would receive the stage 2 response.
17. On 12 February, the landlord provided its final response. It did not uphold the complaint noting the bath was fit for purpose. It advised if the bath or other fittings were damaged during the course of the upcoming repair to the floorboards it would replace these. It explained that it did replace bath panels, however the repair was not an emergency and would be carried out along with the other work. It noted the resident could seek permission to carry out his own improvement works.

Assessment and findings

18. It is clear from the Mutual exchange policy and Declaration form that the resident agreed to accept the property as is following the exchange. The Ombudsman does note that the landlord would be responsible for any repairs which were deemed wear and tear and not rechargeable to the outgoing resident.
19. Following the resident uncovering issues in the bathroom, he reported this to the landlord who in turn arranged for an inspection of the bathroom. It was noted that the flooring had been damaged and the landlord rightly assumed responsibility for this. It is unfortunate that due to the Covid-19 restrictions, routine repairs were put on hold in line with Government guidelines, of which the landlord made the resident aware.
20. While the landlord accepted responsibility for the flooring, its inspection noted no issue with the bath and as such a replacement was refused. The Ombudsman can see the resident’s frustration especially as the mould around the bath was covered at the time of inspection, however this was limited to the sealing around the bath, of which the resident would be responsible for as per the repairs policy. This also goes for the plugs and chains which the resident noted were rusty. The landlord also reasonably noted that any damage it caused during the course of the repair, would be corrected. This included the damage caused to the resident’s bath panel, during the initial survey. This was in line with the policy.
21. Whilst the resident asserts that the outgoing resident concealed issues, the Ombudsman is unable to reach the same conclusions. This is as there is the possibility that due to the choice of decorations, mould formed around the sealant after as opposed to decorations being used to conceal the issue. As such, it was reasonable that the landlord made clear that the issue was the resident’s responsibility to assume.
22. The landlord also reasonably advised the resident that he could complete an improvement and alteration form to carry out further works to the bathroom, should he choose to. Whilst the resident  accepted that he would replace the bath at a cost to himself, but requested that the landlord fit this, the landlord’s refusal to do so, did not amount to a service failure, given that the resident was ultimately responsible for any improvement works he sought to complete.
23. The Ombudsman does accept that it may have been helpful, and as a gesture of goodwill, for the landlord to agree to install the bath, given that the resident was not fully aware of the repair issues until he began decorating works. However, the landlord was still not obliged to accept, given the terms set out within mutual exchanges and resident responsibilities under the repairs policy.
24. Given the passage of time since the complaint was brought to the Ombudsman’s attention and the relaxation of Covid-19 restrictions, the Ombudsman assumes that the flooring works have been completed, but a recommendation will be made to this effect.

Determination (decision)

25. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to the bathroom.

Reasons

26. The landlord arranged an inspection of the bathroom and noted it would replace the flooring. It made clear the position relating to the delays caused by the restrictions. It highlighted the mutual exchange procedure and declaration the resident had signed noting he assumed full responsibility for the property. This ultimately included repairs which the landlord was not responsible for.

Orders and recommendations

27. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
    1. repairs the flooring in the bathroom if it has not done so already.
    2. in future consider gestures of goodwill where incoming residents could not have identified repair issues at the point of inspection during the mutual exchange, but are requesting the landlord’s assistance whilst it is carrying out other works.