Medway Council (202211253)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211253

Medway Council

10 May 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 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:
   1. Handling of recharges for the property.
   2. Its response to the resident’s request for copies of documents relating to the property.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She received the property in a mutual exchange in 2017.
3. In July 2021, the resident moved out of her property. As part of her move, the landlord attended the property on 21 July 2021 to undertake a pre-void inspection. It explained to the resident that the condition of the property was not suitable. There were a number of outstanding repairs to be completed by the resident, and the property needed to be cleaned. Additionally, it informed her that she must remove the wallpaper from the house, as well as the carpets. The resident’s tenancy ended on 25 July 2021. After further inspection, the landlord found a number of repairs outstanding. After repairing the property, the landlord recharged £1241.21 to the resident’s rent account.
4. The resident has stated that she was not informed of the recharge amount by the landlord. She discovered the charge on signing up to her housing account online. The evidence suggests that the resident began to query the amount in early 2022.  An operative for the landlord asked for a breakdown of the costs for the resident in February 2022, yet did not receive the required information. The resident received a letter informing her of the costs on 19 July 2022.
5. The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 8 August 2022. She disputed the charges, stating that she had hired a cleaner to clean the property. She explained that she had undertaken all the works required of her, and any outstanding works or items left in the house were not her responsibility. She also stated that the condition of the property had been poor when she had received it in 2017.
6. The landlord responded on 23 August 2022. It stated that the resident’s hiring of a cleaner was a private arrangement between those parties. It explained that any repairs outstanding in a mutual exchange were the responsibility of the incoming tenant. It also stated that it had reviewed the evidence of how the property had been left by the resident and concluded that the charges were justified. It explained that she had been made aware of the potential to be recharged at the pre-void inspection in June 2021.
7. The resident escalated her complaint the same day. She stated that the landlord had stopped her cleaner cleaning the property during the pre-void inspection. The resident continued to dispute the charges and stated that the landlord had failed to provide her with her tenancy agreement or evidence of the repairs. The landlord responded on 14 September 2022. It stated that the recharges identified were warranted, and that there was no evidence that its operatives had acted unprofessionally. It promised to send the requested documents, to the resident. To conclude the issue, the landlord offered to reduce the charges by £122.46.
8. On 10 March 2023, the landlord identified that it had not sent the resident the documents she had requested. It apologised and offered to reduce the recharge amount by a further £50. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has disputed that her property was left in a poor condition. She has stated that the landlord has relied on records that were completed before she worked on the property, and that anything outstanding had been left by a previous resident.

Assessment

Policies and procedures

9. According to the resident’s tenancy agreement, she must keep the inside of the property in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair during her tenancy. Residents are responsible for repairing internal doors, kitchen units and cupboards, as well as all internal decoration where needed. Additionally, the resident is also responsible for maintaining any fixtures in the garden, such as sheds or outhouses. When leaving the property, the resident must not leave any belongings (including carpets) behind. If they do so the landlord will clear and dispose of them and the resident will have to pay the cost.
10. The landlord’s rechargeable repairs policy states that residents will be charged, in line with their tenancy, for damage to the property. This can be caused by themselves, their household or permitted visitors. When moving out of the property, residents will be responsible for works required to bring the property back to acceptable/re-lettable standard where the works required are due to their actions.
11. When a resident leaves a property, the landlord will undertake a pre-termination inspection. This will identify any items of disrepair, which are the responsibility of the resident. The resident will be advised of these and can rectify them prior to the end of the tenancy. If any items are not remedied prior to the end of the tenancy, are not remedied to a satisfactory standard or further items emerge, the landlord will carry out the repairs, which will be recharged to the now former resident.
12. According to the landlord’s mutual exchange policy, when residents swap properties though a mutual exchange, they pass on their legal interest in those tenancies. Residents who exchange must accept the property in its present state and any damage caused by the outgoing resident will become the responsibility of the incoming resident and will need to be repaired at their own expense.

The landlord’s handling of recharges for the property.

13. The landlord initially invoiced the resident for repairs to the doorframe, two door renewals, a bath panel, forced entry to the shed, stain blocking throughout the property, wallpaper stripping, general cleaning and the hire of a mini skip. The resident is disputing all charges except for the doorframe repair.
14. The resident’s tenancy agreement above dictates that the resident was responsible for all internal doors. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately in attributing the cost of repairing the doors to the resident. The same agreement states that the resident must keep the property clean and in a good standard of decoration. The landlord found that the walls had been graffitied, and asked the resident to strip the wallpaper on leaving the premises. On finding that the wallpaper had not been totally stripped, the landlord charged the resident to complete the work. As part of bringing the walls back to a lettable standard, the landlord also charged the resident for stain blocking. This was reasonable, as the resident was informed of the expectations prior to leaving the premises.
15. The landlord also charged the resident for a skip hire to remove leftover belongings. The landlord was required to break into the resident’s locked shed in the garden, to clear it of rubbish and belongings. The resident has disputed that she was given a key to the shed. However, according to the resident’s tenancy agreement, she should have removed all items from the property. In addition if the resident disputes that she was given a key to the shed and the items were not hers, she was still responsible following the mutual exchange in 2017. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to have charged her for shed opening and item removal, as it was ultimately her responsibility to clear the entire property. Finally, the landlord initially charged the resident for a bath panel that had been loosened as part of its own works to repair a tap on a previous occasion. It later withdrew this charge as a goodwill gesture. This was appropriate, however it should be noted that this was not a goodwill gesture as the landlord should not charge for items that it would normally repair under its repair policy, especially where damage has been caused as a result of its own work.
16. The resident believes that she should not have been charged to clean the premises, as she hired a cleaner during the move. She states that the landlord’s operatives requested that the cleaner cease cleaning while it inspected the property during the pre-void inspection. Despite hiring a cleaner, the resident remained responsible for inspecting the property herself and assessing its state of cleanliness. The inspection was undertaken before the end of the tenancy, which left time to clean the property prior to termination. If the resident believes that the work undertaken by the cleaner was subpar, this would be a personal matter between her and the that third party.
17. The resident has also stated that she should not be held responsible for the repairs, as she states that the property was in a state of disrepair when she moved in. According to the landlord’s mutual exchange policy, the resident inherited all the previous tenant’s repair obligations at the point of exchange. This meant that all aspects that needed to be rectified to bring the property up to a lettable standard became the resident’s responsibility. The resident would have been made aware at the point of the exchange and therefore, the landlord was correct in re-charging the resident for these repairs.
18. The landlord acted appropriately, and in-line with its re-charge policy by undertaking a pre-void inspection to highlight any outstanding repairs. Unfortunately, the resident had confused the dates, and so only her daughter (who was over 18) was present. However, the landlord discussed with the resident on the phone what was outstanding, specifically highlighting the need to remove the carpets and wallpaper. After the resident had disputed the re-charge amount, the landlord inspected the pre-void inspection report, the works invoice and the ‘before and after’ images taken once the resident had left the tenancy. It concluded that the recharges for the works were warranted. This was appropriate, as it made sure that its decision to charge the resident was based on actual evidence of damage to the property.

Its response to the resident’s request for copies of documents relating to the property

19. However, the landlord did not directly inform the resident of the charges. This was not reasonable, as its re-charge policy dictates that the landlord will raise an invoice for payment as soon as possible after the repairs are completed. The invoice will detail a description of the works, the overall costs, details of how to request a full breakdown of works if required, and how to appeal the charge.
20. The resident only discovered the costs through registering for an online account with the landlord. The resident asked for a breakdown of the costs as early as February 2022. However, she only received an official breakdown of the works in July 2022. This was a full year after the resident had vacated the property. The delay in informing the resident of the charges, and the breakdown of the works was not appropriate, as the resident would not have been aware of the costs on her account. This could have had legal consequences if she had failed to repay the amount. Additionally, she was not able to start budgeting for their repayment. This was a failing in the circumstances.
21. The landlord’s first complaint response in August 2022 was appropriate as it detailed why the costs had been attributed to the resident. It explained that it had reviewed all necessary evidence and concluded that the costs were warranted. It also discussed the pre-void inspection, and reminded the resident that she had been told about the outstanding repairs before the end of her tenancy. It promised to send the resident the evidence of the necessary works.
22. In its second response in September 2022, the landlord acted appropriately by reducing the re-charge amount by removing the charges for the bath panel (£22.46). It also offered to reduce the stain blocking costs by £100 in order to conclude the matter. The landlord promised to send the resident her tenancy agreement and the void specification sheet. However, the landlord neglected to send this further information until March 2023. This was six months after it had promised to do so, and was not appropriate in the circumstances.
23. The landlord has offered the resident a further £50 reduction for the delay in sending this information. It was reasonable of the landlord to offer the resident compensation for its failure to provide the requested information, nevertheless, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this amount was not sufficient to redress this aspect of the complaint, as the landlord has repeatedly failed to send documentation to the resident that it should have promptly provided.

Determination (decision)

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was by the landlord no maladministration in its handling of recharges for the property.
25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for copies of documents relating to the property.

Orders

26. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should pay the resident  £200 compensation, in acknowledgement of its repeated failure to provide her with the correct information. This is inclusive of the £50 offered in its complaint response.