Brighter Places (202234271)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234271

Brighter Places

29 February 2024

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. This complaint is about the level of compensation offered to the resident by the landlord during major repair works.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. Her home is a flat in a small block of similar properties. The landlord owns the building. A similar building is adjacent, owned by a different housing association.
3. The landlord’s internal documents state that it was informed at the end of 2021 by the other building’s owner that they had discovered serious structural problems with the front façade of their building. They said these problems had likely spread to the landlord’s building, in which the resident lived. The landlord inspected, and confirmed large cracks and gaps in the façade of its building. The two owners agreed to work together to address the problem.
4. In early 2022 scaffolding went up around the front of the building, from the ground up to the roof. Initially this was to allow inspection of the relevant parts of the building, then subsequently for structural support. This was covered in tarpaulin to protect against falling debris.
5. Inspections and surveys through 2022 established the serious nature and scale of the problem, and identified the need to build support partitions on the internal side of the front façade, taking up part of the front room in each flat. This was the resident’s living room.
6. The landlord started internal preparatory work in August 2022. It explained to the resident how long it hoped the work would take, and the actions it had taken so far in cooperation with the other owner. It set out a detailed timetable for further preparation until January 2023, when it hoped to be able to start to rebuild the façade. It estimated the façade work would take approximately 3 months. The landlord acknowledged the large inconvenience the work would cause, but emphasised the serious nature of the problem and the safety risks it posed. It said it would offer compensation in the form of a 50% reduction in rent from when the partition was installed in the resident’s home (1 August) until it was removed.
7. The resident wrote to the landlord in November 2022. She asked it to increase the rent reduction to 75%. She explained she felt that was fairer in light of not just the diminishment of her living room, but the added stress and inconvenience of having the scaffolding in place and shrouded in coverings since the start of the year, and of living in what was, essentially, a building site.
8. The landlord appears to have taken the resident’s request as a complaint, as it sent a complaint response on 10 February 2023. It acknowledged her concerns, but explained it believed the 50% reduction was reasonable.
9. The resident asked to escalate her complaint. She repeated her original concerns about her living conditions and the impact of the work. She said no work had yet been done, and Christmas with her family had ben ruined. She asked again for a 75% rent reduction. The landlord responded on 3 March 2023. It again acknowledged the impact on the resident, and explained the complexity of the work needing to be done. Nonetheless, it maintained its original offer of a 50% reduction.
10. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in March 2023. She explained the impact on her life from the repair work since the scaffolding went up, explained why she believed a 75% rent reduction was fairer than what the landlord had offered, and complained that the landlord separately intended to increase her rent in 2023.
11. The structural work proceeded through much of 2023. At one stage it was decided all the residents needed to be decanted, but this was later changed and they were allowed to stay in their homes. The internal support partitions were removed in September, and all other works, including internal decorating were completed by November.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

12. In her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident complained that the landlord intended to raise her rent, and also that it had recently alleged she had rent arrears. Both of these concerns arose after the landlord issued its final complained response, and have not been raised as formal complaints with the landlord. The Ombudsman cannot investigate a complaint until it has already been investigated by the landlord. Accordingly, the resident should do that, and return to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied with the outcome.
13. However, while the Ombudsman can investigate complaints about rent arrears, complaints about the level of rent are not ones the Ombudsman may investigate.

The level of compensation offered to the resident by the landlord during major repair works

14. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will consider compensation when a resident is unable to use some or all of their home due to disrepair. The policy explains that the loss of use of a room should be compensated by a percentage refund in rent, depending on the room type. Living rooms are compensated by a 10% reduction.
15. A landlord would usually be expected to consider providing compensation if its actions or lack of action contributed to damage or inconvenience experienced by a tenant. The landlord’s compensation policy confirms that in such situations it will consider providing compensation.
16. In this case it is clear that the scale and nature of the work required to repair the structure and make it safe meant there would be a significant and drawn out impact on the resident. There was clearly an effect from the erection of the scaffolding in early 2022, but the scaffolding initially provided access for the landlord’s inspections, and then provided structural support. The evidence does not show any indication that the scaffolding was managed inappropriately, and the landlord demonstrated awareness of its effect by swapping the original opaque scaffolding safety coverings for transparent ones, to allow for at least some level of light to the affected properties.
17. The impact on the resident increased significantly when the landlord installed the support partitions in her living room. She has variously described them to have taken up between a third and half of her living room space. In that circumstance it was appropriate and in line with its policy for the landlord to offer a level of compensation.
18. The landlord’s policy sets out that a 10% rent reduction is the relevant level of compensation for the loss of use of a living room. The 50% reduction offered by the landlord clearly exceeded that. The resident has confirmed that it maintained the reduction for the whole period the support partitions were in place.
19. The resident told the landlord that there were a range of other inconveniences and frustrations living through the repair work. Such additional impacts would be expected and understandable, and by providing more compensation than it was obliged to for the loss of use of the living room, the landlord effectively compensated for the additional stresses of living through the repairs.
20. The resident said in her complaint to the Ombudsman that the structural repairs were the result of neglected maintenance by the landlord over a long period of years. If that were the case additional compensation might have been expected from the landlord. However, the evidence shows that the problems started in the neighbouring property and appear to have spread to the resident’s block. Nothing in the information seen in this investigation meaningfully suggests failings by the landlord led to the structural problems.
21. The repair work took much longer than the three months the landlord originally expected. That would undoubtedly have added to the resident’s frustrations. Nonetheless, the landlord provided regular and detailed updates and meetings to keep her informed about its actions and timescales.
22. At one point the landlord told the resident that she was required to temporarily move out of the property. The resident was reluctant to do so, but eventually agreed. The landlord then changed its mind and allowed all of the tenants to stay if they wished. The resident has explained how disruptive this had been, as she had packed many of her belongings in preparation. This was after the landlord’s complaint responses, and so the landlord has not had an opportunity to explain its actions in regard to this decant. However, the decant would have reduced the direct impact on the resident from the day to day work and conditions she was living in, and so it appears reasonable for the landlord to have considered it. The fact that it subsequently allowed the tenants to stay showed it appreciated their views and wishes.

Determination (decision)

23. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

24. There is no denying how distressing and frustrating it would have been for the resident to have to live through such large scale work. Nonetheless, the evidence shows the work was essential and complex, and that it was carried out as reasonably as could be expected in the circumstances. The landlord acknowledged the significant impact on the resident and offered reasonable compensation in light of it, both for the partial loss of her living room, and the added stress of the work being done around her.