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

Abri Group Limited (202121616)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121616

Abri Group Limited

27 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 repairs to the resident’s front door. 

Background

  1. The resident, a secure tenant of the landlord, reported that his front door was damaged on 26 May 2021, shortly after moving into the property. He said that the door frame was snapped, but the lock on the door was fine. The landlord then raised a repair with its subcontractor.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 15 July 2021, as he was dissatisfied that the door had still not been repaired. He also said that there had been an attempted break-in at the property.
  3. In the landlord’s final response of 17 December 2021, it said that the original subcontractor couldn’t complete the works as it was a fire door, so required a specialist contractor. It said that there had been several delays which it could not discuss due to GDPR. It stated it had fitted a safety chain to improve the security. The resident had then requested to move to a different property; the landlord advised he did not meet the criteria for a management transfer, as the property was secure, but it provided him with advice on applying to move properties. It acknowledged however that it could improve its communication to residents to provide more updates regarding delayed repairs.
  4. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he said he remained dissatisfied due to the length of time taken to complete the repairs and the impact that it had on his mental health. He confirmed the door was replaced in January 2022, but that it had required further repairs in March 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s failure to repair the door had impacted his mental health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts as the courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.

Repairs to the front door

  1. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, which would include the front door. It also states it will “carry out all repairs which are our responsibility within reasonable timescales and to a reasonable standard”. The landlord’s void home standard states that doors will be left in good working order and if the front door is beyond economic repair or not fulfilling its function of security, it will be replaced. As a result, the landlord would be expected to assess the state of repair of the door and complete any necessary repairs. The usual industry standard for repairs is 20 working days, however, the timescale is longer for repairs which are part of a planned schedule of works.
  2. The damage to the door frame was identified in the voids report on 23 February 2021 following the end of the previous tenancy at the property. However, the landlord’s surveyor had confirmed that the door was secure. In an internal email on 8 April 2021, it was stated that several doors in the block were due to be upgraded under the fire policy and the works were expected to be completed in September 2021.
  3. The resident initially reported that the door was damaged on 26 May 2021, however there were no security concerns raised. The landlord subsequently raised a repair with its subcontractor. The contractor attended on 16 August 2021, but was unable to complete the repair. On 2 September 2021, the resident rang to chase the repair so the landlord called the contractor and confirmed a specialist contractor would be required to complete the work as it was a fire door. Despite the fact the contractor had not advised the landlord they were unable to complete the repair prior to this, the landlord has a responsibility to communicate with its contractors, so that it is aware of any issues. The landlord has acknowledged this failing, within its stage two response, and stated that it will aim to arrange appointments with the correct contractors for future works, to ensure that such works are carried out sooner.
  4. The resident continued to chase the repair and the landlord failed to manage his expectations regarding when the work would be completed. The landlord then issued a stage one response on 29 October 2021, advising that several doors were due to be replaced and there were delays, but it could not discuss the reasons due to GDPR. The landlord has provided details of the delay to this Service and it was not unreasonable. 
  5. In some cases, there are factors which may prevent the landlord from adhering to repair timeframes. When repair timeframes are exceeded for relevant reasons, the landlord’s primary focus should be on taking clear and appropriate steps to resolve the issue in a reasonable timeframe, arranging temporary fixes in the interim (if possible), keeping the resident appropriately up to date, and managing their expectations.
  6. In this case, it was appropriate that the landlord installed a security chain as a temporary measure on 2 September 2021, to increase security, while the repairs were outstanding. Although there were some reasonable reasons for the delay, the landlord failed to provide regular updates to the resident or reasonably manage his expectations regarding the timeframes. The landlord had identified that the work would be included in the planned schedule of works following the void report, however it raised a separate work order when the resident initially reported the issue. As a result, the resident will have been led to believe that the repair would take significantly less time. This necessitated an unreasonable level of involvement by the resident in pursuing the repair and was particularly detrimental, due to his safety concerns.
  7. The resident had requested to be moved, due to not feeling safe in the property. The landlord’s management transfer procedure states in “exceptional circumstances there may be cases where a move is necessary on the grounds of safety due to a serious risk of harm”. As the door had been determined to be secure and there were no safety concerns, the landlord would not be expected to provide a management transfer. There was also no evidence that the property was uninhabitable. However, given the resident’s concerns, it was appropriate that the landlord provided alternative advice on moving, including making bids on other properties and mutual exchange.
  8. Overall, although there were significant delays, the repair was part of a planned programme of works, so it would not be expected for the works to be completed within the usual timeframe. There were delays outside of the landlord’s control. However, the landlord failed to set the resident’s expectations regarding the timeframe when the repair was initially reported, as it did not inform him that it was part of a planned programme of works, rather than a routine repair.
  9. In line with this Service’s remedy guidance, awards of £50 – £250 are appropriate in cases where the landlord’s service failure has impacted the complainant, including failure to meet service standards for actions and responses. In this case, the resident had to regularly chase the repair as the landlord had failed to provide a clear timeframe for the works, or reasonably managed the resident’s expectations regarding when the works would be completed. As a result, this caused the resident additional time and effort in pursuing the complaint.
  10. Although the landlord acknowledged failings with its communication, it did not offer any compensation in its final complaint response. It had offered £100 gesture of goodwill on 2 September 2021, due to the delay with allocating the wrong contractor, but from later correspondence it appears that the resident sent the payment back to the landlord. In light of the failings identified in this report, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident a total of £350 compensation, including the £100 that was initially offered.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the repairs to the resident’s front door.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £350 compensation. This is including the £100 that it previously offered.
  2. The landlord to evidence compliance with this order to this Service within 28 days of this report

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its repairs policy, and considers specifying repair timeframes to more effectively manage residents’ expectations.
  2. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order and whether it will follow the above recommendations.