Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Plus Dane Housing Limited (202121379)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121379

Plus Dane Housing Group Limited

28 June 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 handling of the resident’s request to replace the bath in her home.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. At the end of 2019 the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions saying that she was unhappy with the overall condition of her bathroom. The records do not include mention of any specific repair issues. She said she had been told the bathroom would be replaced in 2025, but was dissatisfied with having to wait that long. The landlord’s operatives attended to inspect in January 2020. Evidence of the outcome of its inspection has not been provided for this investigation. The landlord initially agreed to replace the resident’s bath in January 2020. This was put on hold in March 2020 as a result the Covid-19 pandemic, due to the landlord only attending emergency repairs at that time.
  3. There is no evidence of further activity until the resident contacted the landlord a year later on 29 March 2021, when she asked if it still intended to replace the bath. The resident contacted the landlord again in May 2021, as she had not received a response. As a result, the landlord raised a repair order on 12 May 2021. This was no longer to replace the existing bath with a new bath, as was the initial agreement in 2020. Instead, the landlord agreed to the resident’s request to replace the bath with a shower, and the surrounding tiles with cladding. The landlord made efforts to complete the work over June, July, and August, but in September the resident contacted the landlord saying she wanted to cancel the works. It’s records show that she explained “She feels there has been too much messing around with appointments etc. i advised that we had sourced a tray and screen, but she does not want the messing around taking time off work. there have been delays and appointments moved. the job was not straight forward. better communication was needed …”.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 13 October 2021 as she was dissatisfied with its handling of the bath replacement. Due to the delays, the resident said she had paid for the works to be completed herself. As a resolution the resident wanted the landlord to compensate her for the time she had had to take off work for previous appointments and for the total cost of completing the works herself.
  5. The landlord issued its stage one response on 28 October 2021. It offered the resident £65 compensation in recognition of poor communication for when it failed to call her back and for having to raise a complaint. It said its policy to compensate for works the resident carried out herself was only applicable where the resident had gained written consent from it to complete the works and gave the resident information regarding where she could apply for its consent.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the stage one response and escalated her complaint. The landlord issued its stage two response on 2 December 2021. It apologised that it was not able to fulfil the resident’s request, due to the resident feeling that she had no choice but to complete the works herself. It advised the resident that it was unable to fully uphold her complaint and compensate for the full cost of the bathroom works she had carried out. It revised its offer of compensation to £240 for the inconvenience caused by aspects of its poor service and in part as a gesture of goodwill to pay half the costs the resident said she had incurred by completing the works. It gave the resident details for how to contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
  7. The resident contacted this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation the landlord offered. To resolve the complaint, the resident wanted compensating £193.20 for the estimated annual leave she had taken to be available for appointments, and £320 which was the amount the resident said it had cost to complete the works herself.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement makes clear that the landlord has an obligation to “keep in good repair and working order any fixtures and fittings for…sanitation”. It specifies that this includes “basins, sinks, baths, showers, toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes.” Nothing in the tenancy, or in the other evidence provided for this investigation, suggests that the landlord has an obligation to replace or renew a bathroom which is working, or not otherwise in need of repair. In that vein, nothing in the evidence shows that the landlord received reports of specific repair issues with the bathroom, only that the resident believed she was overdue for a bathroom renewal or replacement. On receiving the resident’s request the landlord did the appropriate thing by inspecting, to find out what issues, if any, needed attention. No evidence of the outcome of the inspection has been provided. However, in the absence of any clear repair issues in the resident’s initial report, in the formal complaint, or in the relevant repair records, the landlord’s explanation (in its complaint response) that the decision to renew the resident’s bathroom was a discretionary one it took as a gesture of goodwill appears accurate. A landlord would not usually be expected to compensate for failing to provide a service it was not obliged to provide in the first place.
  2. Landlords are expected to make every effort to ensure their properties meet the relevant Decent Home guidance. One of the criteria in the guidance is for a bathroom to be “reasonably modern”, which is taken to be less than 30 years old. However, there are other criteria also, and a landlord is not obliged to satisfy all of them. Accordingly, a home could be considered to be ‘decent’, even if it has not had its bathroom updated in the previous 30 years. In this case, the resident said she had been told the landlord intended refurbishment work for 2025. That shows that the landlord had a plan by which it would work towards meeting the Decent Home criteria. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if a property meets the decent home criteria, this reference to the Decent Home guidance is included as an indicator of what might be reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.
  3. Even when undertaking discretionary work on a resident’s behalf a landlord is expected to generally maintain appropriate levels of professionalism, efficiency, and quality. In this case the work offered by the landlord was still not complete by September 2021, and so the resident’s frustration with the delay is understandable. The evidence shows that at least a large part of that time was due to factors outside the landlord’s control, such as the impact of the covid restrictions, or potentially the change in the plan from a bath to a shower. Nonetheless, there are still periods when there is no clear evidence explaining the time taken, which indicates failings in the landlord’s services.
  4. The landlord accepted where its service was less than it should have been, and that at times its communication with the resident was poor, something she had raised in her complaint and was a factor in her frustration. It offered compensation of £240 in its final response. The overall amount reflected a gesture to pay some of the costs the resident incurred doing the renewal work herself, and partly for the inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor service.
  5. The compensation offered by the landlord was a reasonable way in which to remedy its failings, because the it had no real obligation to provide compensation at all, given that the work was at its own discretion. Furthermore, as the landlord explained in its stage on response, the resident had the right to make improvements and alterations to her home, provided that written permission had first been obtained from the landlord. The evidence does not show that the resident obtained the landlord’s consent, which the landlord informed the resident would be required for any reimbursement to be considered, and any such reimbursement would only be payable when she moved out of her home.
  6. A significant part of the resident’s complaint concerned the time she had had to take off work due to the landlord’s efforts to renew the bathroom, and the compensation she sought because of it. The landlord’s decision not to provide such compensation was reasonable because the tenancy agreement states tenants are obliged to provide access for repairs, and a request for actual lost earnings would require assessment of liability and a claim to the courts. It would be outside the complaints procedure and the Ombudsman’s remit.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £240 as previously agreed if it has not already done so. The decision above was partly based on this offer.