Northumberland Council (202208014)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208014

Northumberland Council

24 February 2023

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 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 external decoration works.

Background

2. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord of a semi-detached house since November 2020, which he was assigned as part of a mutual exchange.
3. The resident’s reported that his property’s exterior had tar applied by the previous tenant as part of a makeshift shed roof. He also described this as having had holes drilled into the external walls by the landlord’s contractors refilling insulation, leaving marks in the render on the walls, which was already falling out but that it would only patch repair and not paint over to protect this.
4. The resident therefore made a stage one complaint to the landlord on 28 March 2022, of which this Service was not provided with a copy, but that was described by it as being about its decision regarding the rending at his property. He then chased it on 5 April 2022, and reiterated that he sought for it to “sort the outside of the property out”.
5. The landlord’s subsequent stage one complaint response of 26 April 2022 apologised to the resident for any inconvenience caused to him. It confirmed that it had inspected the rendering at his property and agreed to carry out a repair to this. The landlord further explained that it had no planned painting programme currently scheduled for the resident’s area to enable it to paint the property’s exterior as he had requested, but it clarified that he could request permission from it to perform this himself, and it provided him with details to do so.
6. The resident subsequently escalated his complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 6 May 2022. He reported that this was after he had been informed by its operative that its external painting works programme in his area would not occur for another two years, and that he felt that it needed to act more promptly.
7. The landlord’s final stage complaint response of 30 May 2022 reiterated that external decoration to the resident’s property would only be completed by it as part of a planned painting programme, and would not be addressed through one-off decoration by its repairs team. It sympathised with him regarding the marks on the render of the property’s exterior walls, but it clarified that these appeared to be present when he agreed to be assigned the property by mutual exchange and that its patch repairs to the render meant that this did not need to be decorated before its planned programme.
8. The landlord further explained that it was unable to provide the resident with a date for when the planned painting programme would go ahead, which was subject to change due to being reviewed annually and prioritised based on staff feedback and repairs. He would therefore need permission to paint the property himself, if he wished to do so.
9. The resident subsequently complained to this Service because he was dissatisfied at the landlord’s decision to wait until a planned painting programme to decorate his property’s exterior walls. He explained that patch repair and decoration works were needed to the render to fix previous damage to the exterior of the property, from both the insulation team drilling into the walls and the previous tenant’s tar makeshift shed roof. The resident also reported that he had been affected by stress due to the condition of his property.
10. Following the resident’s complaint to this Service, he chased the landlord to provide a “more solid date” as to when the rendering and painting work to his property’s exterior would be completed. It confirmed that it had scheduled an appointment for 23 February 2023 to complete the render works, for when the weather had become warmer, as cold could affect the durability of the render. The landlord did not provide an update on the timescale of the planned painting programme, which it informed this Service did not amount to a responsive repair, and fell outside of the current target dates for its planned investment works to the property.

Assessment and findings

11. It is not disputed by the parties that the landlord is responsible for decorating the exterior of the resident’s property. However, the timeframe that the external decoration works should be completed within is contested by them. External painting programmes are listed as planned works on the landlord’s website, which states that such works should be completed within 90 working days of a repair request or a need being identified, in a planned manner that is weather dependent and may need to be rescheduled.
12. It is important to note that social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these responsibly to benefit all of their residents. The landlord appropriately informed the resident in its stage one and final stage complaint responses that the painting works to the exterior of his property would not be completed by it outside of a planned painting programmed. This was reasonable because these works did not consist of repairs or needs identified by it as impacting his use of his property, or his safety, in accordance with its website.
13. It was nevertheless appropriate that the landlord apologised to the resident for any inconvenience caused by the outstanding repairs to the render on his property’s external walls, after its contractors refilled the insulation. Furthermore, following his stage one complaint of 28 March 2022, its stage one complaint response of 26 April 2022 agreed to organise repairs, which was a reasonable solution to his concerns within its website’s 90-working-day planned works timescale.
14. It was unfortunate that this repair work was not successful as the resident described, and so it was appropriate that the landlord organised a further repair of this. While this repair was delayed until 23 February 2023, this was not unreasonable because it acted in the best interests of the work for this to be carried out in warmer weather, in order to prevent a further failed repair from cold affecting the render. This was also in accordance with the landlord’s website, which confirmed that such works were to be carried out in a planned manner that was weather dependent and may need to be rescheduled, about which it kept the resident appropriately updated in the meantime.
15. Moreover, the resident agreed to the assignment of the property to him as part of a mutual exchange, and therefore he agreed to take the property in the condition that this was in at that time. Therefore, in the interest of managing its resources appropriately, the landlord acted reasonably in informing him that the external painting works by it there would not be possible before the planned painting programme.
16. Prior to the resident’s final stage complaint escalation of 6 May 2022, he reported that he had been advised by the landlord that the planned painting programme would not occur within the next two years in his area. Although it was not unreasonable that it did not have an exact date for when the programme would occur, it would have been useful for him to have had a more precise estimate of when this was, to allow him to consider alternative solutions. The landlord has therefore been recommended below to provide the resident with an up-to-date estimate of the expected timescale for the completion of planned painting works in his area, if possible.
17. It was also appropriate that the landlord’s complaint responses informed the resident that he was able to perform the external painting works to his property himself, and that it provided him with details to enable him to do so. This allowed him to have a swifter resolution to this issue, and to prevent any further distress as a result of the condition of his property, which was a reasonable remedy for it to suggest.
18. On a separate note, the landlord was asked by this Service to provide us with evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. However, only limited information was received, which did not include significant items such as the resident’s stage one complaint to it, records, and the terms and conditions of his tenancy agreement. In this case, this investigation was able to make a determination based on the information provided. However, the omissions suggested a shortcoming in the landlord’s records. It has therefore been recommended below to review its record-keeping practices in relation to its residents’ tenancy terms and conditions and formal complaints to ensure that it retains copies of these in every case.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for external decoration works.

Recommendations

20. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Provide the resident with an up-to-date estimate of the expected timescale for the completion of planned painting works in his area, if possible.
    2. Review its record-keeping practices in relation to its residents’ tenancy terms and conditions and formal complaints to ensure that it retains copies of these in every case.