Barking and Dagenham Council (202115176)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115176

Barking and Dagenham Council

29 March 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 for an outward facing back door.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a house.
3. On 25 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the frame of her back door was loose, and the door did not close properly. The landlord raised a repair to be looked into within 20 days, and on 9 March 2021, a surveyor inspected and confirmed a new door need to be fitted. The resident advises that, at the time, she asked if the new door could be fitted to be outward facing. She says she was informed this would not be a problem, but she should speak with the contractor when he came.
4. On 10 May 2021, the contractor visited the resident’s property to measure the doorway. The resident advises that she asked the contractor if an outward facing door was possible and was informed she would need to confirm this with her landlord.
5. On 11 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to request for the door to be fitted outwards. She also expressed that she was unhappy with the contractor’s behaviour because they said she was asking too many questions; the contractor was not wearing a mask; and told her to hurry up and ask the landlord about the outward facing door. The resident said she did not want the contractor to return and asked if an outward facing door would be fitted.
6. The resident contacted the landlord on two further occasions to chase for an update on the repair for her back door, and to confirm if the door could be fitted outwards. 
7. In June 2021, the resident was informed by the landlord that the door facing outwards would not be a problem. The landlord arranged for the repairs to take place on 30 June 2021, following which the resident reported that contractors had not attended and queried when repairs would be rearranged for.
8. During July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to clarify that the repair had not been completed despite it saying otherwise. The resident was told by the same staff from 11 May 2021 that the department could not help her as they did not deal with this type of request. The repair was completed on 21 July 2021, following which the resident complained to the landlord that it had been fitted facing inwards, despite her numerous requests for it to be fitted outwards in line with what she believed had happened at another property.
9. Following this, the landlord discussed the matter internally and with contractors. It was noted that staff and the contractor had confirmed to the resident that the door could be outward facing, and it was queried if it could be altered. It was noted that an outward door would never be fitted because:

1. wind could catch the door and rip it off.
2. the weather board would be the wrong way.
3. it would be easy to break into by removing the beading.

10. On 4 August 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint. This stated that staff had been contacted to request if the resident’s query could be actioned.
11. Between 9 August and 20 September 2021, the landlord held discussions internally and with its contractor about alteration of the door to make it outward facing, and it was concluded that that a new door would be required to accommodate the resident’s request. It was noted that the resident said an outward facing door had been installed at a separate property and that this was disputed by the landlord’s contractor. The resident was subsequently informed that the landlord would not be able to replace the door with an outward facing one.
12. On 21 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again asking for the door to be changed to face outward. In response to this the landlord responded to say the complaint had been escalated and she would receive response by 17 November 2021. The final response letter was issued on 19 November 2021.
    1. It explained that when the planner had chased the contractor for the door to be installed there was no mention of the resident’s request for it to be facing outwards.
    2. The response stated that the staff which the resident spoke with on 11 May 2021, had a different recollection of the conversation.  The resident had informed the staff that she was told the door would be hung outward and wanted confirmation if this was still happening. However, the resident was informed this could not be clarified as the staff were not equipped with the knowledge or experience to comment upon how doors should be installed.
    3. The landlord explained that there was an error and misunderstanding between the staff and contractors and as a result the resident was provided with conflicting information as to whether the door could be hung outward.
    4. It acknowledged that multiple departments were at fault in not taking this matter forward as they were aware of the resident’s request.
    5. In response to comments that other properties had outward facing doors, the landlord explained that it had no way of knowing if the resident’s door would have been allowed to have an outward facing door.
13. The landlord’s response concluded that the landlord was not going to replace the door to be fitted outwards, because it had already been replaced and was fully functioning. The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and compensated the resident £50 because the service which she received fell below its standards. The landlord also said it had raised this issue with both teams to ensure that lessons are learned from the mistakes that had occurred in this case.
14. The resident was dissatisfied with the response, stating that the complaint has been left unresolved. The resident’s desired outcome would be for the door to face outward.

Assessment and findings

15. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, Section 11 implies repair obligations for tenants. It states the following:
16. “In a lease to which this section applies (as to which, see sections 13 and 14) there is implied a covenant by the lessor— to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house (including drains, gutters and external pipes).”
17. The Housing Ombudsman considered the length of time that it took the landlord to repair the resident’s back door, and whether this was reasonable.
18. The resident had initially raised concerns about her back door on 25 February 2021, however it was not repaired until 5 months later on 21 July 2021.
19. Generally, with this type of repair it would take longer than usual because the frame as well as the door would need replacing and measuring.
20. There is no evidence to suggest that the door posed an immediate safety risk to require interim repairs to make the door safe, or emergency prioritisation of the door replacement. Therefore, and whilst it is noted that the replacement took longer than may generally have been expected, taking all the circumstances into account, the Ombudsman considers the length of time the landlord took to replace the door is reasonable.
21. The resident has expressed the reason for wanting an outward facing door was for more space. The landlord reviewed this and informed her that it would not fund these works now that the door has been replaced.
22. As the door is considered part of the structure, the landlord would be responsible to ensure a suitable repair of the door under the act. It is evident that the landlord met its obligations as the door was replaced on 21 July 2021.
23. However, what is in question is whether the landlord followed its correct procedures when handling the resident’s request in altering the door to face outwards, and also whether the landlord was obliged to accept the resident’s request.
24. The Housing Ombudsman Service understands that the resident says that other tenants have had their doors fitted in this way, and it is important for a landlord to treat tenants fairly and consistently; however, our main consideration is the resident’s property and whether the landlord is following its obligations. Based on a review of the law and landlord’s policies there is no evidence to show that the landlord is obligated to fit the door in a certain way.
25. Whilst the landlord was not required to fit the door in the way that the resident wanted it to, it is clear that the landlord did not follow good practice when dealing with the resident’s request.
26. This is evidenced in the landlord’s email to the Housing Ombudsman on 1 February 2022 where it stated “We would have expected the officer to have recorded how the request was considered. This should have been communicated to the resident at the start. If there was a dispute about the scope, the officer should have liaised with colleagues in repairs. This did not happen, and the resident was given information that was misleading”.
27. The landlord considered the stress and inconvenience caused, by the conflicting information that was provided to the resident. The landlord’s position was that compensation was appropriate to remedy the confusion, time and trouble spent chasing officers and raising a complaint. The landlord awarded £50 compensation to the resident.
28. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this appears reasonable as the offer was in line with its guidelines and what this service would have recommended given the circumstances.
29. This Service recognises that in many areas the landlord has appropriately responded to the complaint in very positive ways, outlining a number of steps it has taken to ensure it met its obligations. It was also right for the landlord to consider making an offer of redress to recognise the failures and, when the resident expressed continued dissatisfaction, it was right to invite her to clarify the level of compensation or the outcome she was seeking.
30. Overall, considering all the circumstances of the case, the landlord has demonstrated it took a broad customer and resolution focused approach to put things right and learn lessons from the case, in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Determination (decision)

31. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

32. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord has overall responded reasonably to the complaint. The landlord met its repairs obligations, which do not specifically require it to fit a door in a certain way.  It demonstrated it considered and provided a reasonable position on the resident’s request for the door to be fitted in a certain way. It appropriately identified and reasonably compensated for service issues in respect of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

33. The landlord to consider having a repairs policy in place, with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs.
34. The landlord should now pay compensation to the resident if not already done so.