East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202101005)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101005

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

11 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s decision to re-charge the resident for having taken off and disposed of the internal doors at the property.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 30 September 1996. The property is a three-bedroom house.

Summary of events

On 7 June 2018 the resident telephoned the landlord to advise that she had not had a kitchen or living room door for over a year, as they split, so she got rid of them.
The following month, on 25 July 2018, the resident chased the matter with the landlord, who advised that as she had removed the doors herself, she would need to replace them.
The landlord’s notes state that a surveyor had tried to call the resident at some point between 7 June and 25 July 2020 but was unable to get hold of her, however, on 15 August 2018, the landlord’s surveyor confirmed to the landlord that irrespective, it would be the case that the resident would need to pay herself for replacement doors.
During November 2018 and again between August and November 2020, there was communication between the landlord and resident about the doors, with the resident stating that she could not afford to have them replaced and asking the landlord to do this without charging her, which it declined. During one of the calls, the landlord’s records state that the resident said the damage to the doors were possibly caused by her moving furniture.
Two months later, on 11 January 2021, the resident raised a request for missing doors and a broken airing cupboard door.
Three months after that, on 13 April 2021, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord about its decision to re-charge her for having taken off the internal doors of the property and disposing of them. The resident wanted the landlord to replace the doors and not to recharge her. This included a damaged airing cupboard door, which she had not taken off or disposed of. The resident said the situation had been going on for a couple of years and that it was a fire hazard not having internal doors and she could not afford new doors.
On 22 April 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident, acknowledging her complaint and saying it would be in contact with her within two days, to discuss matters. It wrote to her on 26 April 2021, advising that it would provide a response to her complaint within the next seven days. The landlord telephoned the resident on 27 April 2021 but could not reach her and so left a message, asking that she call it back.
On 30 April 2021, the landlord’s surveyor attended and inspected the property. A stage one complaint response was provided later that day. The landlord stated that it understood that it was difficult for the resident to be able to afford to replace the doors, however, it noted that permission was not sought or granted, for her to remove and dispose of the doors and so she must be recharged for them. It advised the resident to contact its ‘Finance Team’ in order to agree a repayment plan with it.
On 1 May 2021, the resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. She maintained that she did not believe she should be re-charged for having taken off and disposed of internal doors at the property and said that the airing cupboard door remained but was in need of repair. She did not realise that she needed permission to remove the doors and had had no doors for years, saying it was a fire hazard to not have them. She could not afford replacement doors and as resolution of her complaint, the resident wanted:
1. The landlord to renew the kitchen base unit door she had removed, without charge.
2. The landlord to supply and fit new internal doors to the kitchen and living room that she had removed, without charge.
3. The landlord to replace the damaged airing cupboard door without charge.
On 11 May 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request and advised that it would contact her shortly to arrange a time for its complaints panel to meet, which would normally be within 28 days and explained that a decision letter would be sent thereafter, within five days of the meeting.
On 18 May 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with a panel date of 5 July 2021, apologising that this was outside of its target timeframe but that it was the earliest date it could convene the panel.
On 9 July 2021, the landlord sent its stage two complaint response to the resident, following the panel meeting to consider the matter on 5 July 2021. The resident did not attend the meeting, saying she was unable to. It did not uphold the complaint, maintaining its position at stage one. It explained its reasons for this being that there had been no issue of fair wear and tear but instead, the resident had decided to remove and dispose of the doors, causing impact damage to the remaining one. Under paragraph 8 of its ‘Repairs and Maintenance Policy’ it would therefore be recharging. It brought this, paragraph 9 of the tenancy agreement, and the ‘Tenancy Handbook’, to the resident’s attention.
The landlord said that an earlier offer to replace the doors remained open and that this would cost £575.23, comprised of £163.48 for each internal door and £84.79 for the kitchen base unit door. The landlord offered a payment plan of £47.94 for 12 months. It explained that it could not offer lending terms beyond 12 months due to legal reasons, nor guarantee an exact match in the replaced doors.
The landlord added that it was identified at the hearing that the doors would not need to be fire rated, however, by accepting its offer or by having the doors renewed with her own tradesman, this concern of the resident’s as to fire safety, would be addressed.

Assessment and findings

Paragraph 8.2 of the landlord’s ‘Repairs and Maintenance Policy’ states that “We expect our residents to look after their homes. In circumstances where damage to our property is due to wilful damage, neglect, misuse or abuse by the tenant, their family or their visitors, we will seek to recharge the cost of the repairs to the tenant”.
The ‘Tenant Handbook’ states under ‘Recharges’ that “Where it has been identified that a resident has caused damage to their property, undertaken unauthorised alterations, or left possessions and/or rubbish behind when vacating, we will seek to recover the costs incurred to rectify the damage and/or issues identified. Where a non-emergency repair has been requested and it is evident that it is due to tenant damage, work will not be carried out unless the tenant agrees to pay for the full costs of the works in advance of them being carried out”.
Paragraph 9 of the tenancy agreement states the tenant’s responsibility to “Make good any damage to the premises or…fixtures and fittings to the common parts caused by the tenant, fair wear and tear excepted, and to pay any costs incurred by [the landlord] carrying out such works in default”.
Once on notice, the landlord is obliged to carry out the repairs it is responsible for, within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with the terms of the tenancy and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable period of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of a case.
In this case, the resident has been without internal doors at the property – as well as an absence of the kitchen base unit door – since at least 2018, of which the landlord is aware. The resident has been without doors since this time because she decided to remove and dispose of them herself but did not replace them.
Without being ‘on notice’ of any issues of repair, the landlord’s responsibility to repair does not come into force. This is because it would be unreasonable to expect the landlord to be aware of required repairs without having been notified of them.
The resident was required to notify the landlord of any repair issues in the first instance, to allow it an opportunity to respond and carry out any required repairs, which she did not do, instead deciding to dispose of the doors herself, without the financial means to replace them.
An additional point important to make, is that even in the absence of repair issues, to make any changes such as removing or replacing the doors at the property requires permission from the landlord, which the resident did not seek.
The landlord is not required to provide or pay for replacement doors because it was not notified of any repairs or given any opportunity to carry repairs out. Nor did it grant permission for the resident to remove and dispose of the doors.
The tenancy agreement, ‘Repairs and Maintenance Policy’ and ‘Tenant Handbook’ all state that the resident is responsible for replacement of the doors in these circumstances and that she is financially liable for this.
It is unfortunate that the resident says she is unable to afford to replace the doors and having to do so causes an additional expense which she has not accounted for. The landlord’s policies and the tenancy make clear, however, that this is her responsibility.
The landlord’s actions in offering the resident a payment plan over 12 months is reasonable in the circumstances because it is not obliged to do this and in doing so, recognises her individual circumstances and seeks to support her in this.
Turning to the airing cupboard door, this has not been removed but is said to have damage. The resident in one phone call in 2018 is said to have mentioned that it may have been damaged by her having “moved furniture around”; had the resident damaged the door, she would be responsible for repair or replacement. However, the exact cause of damage is unclear.
The landlord is responsible for carrying out repairs as described, and is responsible also, for repairing or replacing items which have damage through fair wear and tear. The resident has lived in the property a substantial length of time, since 1996, and fair wear and tear would likely be expected since that time.
The landlord missed an opportunity in responding to the complaint, to make a current assessment of the damage to the airing cupboard door and to make a decision thereafter as to repair or replacement of this, separate to the removal of doors; an issue which became unhelpfully conflated. This in itself does not warrant service failure on the part of the landlord, but a recommendation is made as to assessment of this door specifically, due to the uncertain circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord was not responsible for replacing the doors the resident removed and disposed of, in accordance with the tenancy agreement and supporting policies, specifically, the ‘Repairs and Maintenance Policy’ and ‘Tenant Handbook’.

Recommendation

The landlord to inspect the airing cupboard door with a view to assess whether it is damaged and requires repair and, therefore, to determine who is responsible.
The landlord to confirm its intention in respect of the above recommendation within four weeks of the date on this report.