Citizen Housing (202216412)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216412

Citizen Housing

30 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of uncovered wiring.
2. Repairs to the bathroom wall.
3. Repairs to the balcony door.
4. Repairs to the bedroom window.
5. The resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
As the issue regarding incomplete wiring and repairs to the bathroom wall have been raised to the landlord and are being dealt with in a separate complaint by the landlord. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of uncovered wiring.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom wall.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, she lives in a 2 bedroom flat on the fifth floor within a block of 8 storeys, which contains communal areas for those over the age of 55 years. The tenancy started on 2 October 2017. The landlord has confirmed the resident has listed vulnerabilities of mental health and mobility type issues, which were declared within her disrepair case.
The tenancy agreement summarises the landlord’s obligations under the terms of section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It states the landlord will keep the structure of the dwelling and all fixtures and fittings for the supply of gas, electricity, heating and hot water in repair and in proper working order.
The landlord operates a flexible repairs policy which does not detail timescales, it books non-emergency repair appointments for the first mutually available appointment with the resident. It website says some jobs will need specialist materials or contractors, in these cases it will inform residents of a timescale.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint process, its complaints policy at the time of the residents complaint said all complaints would be acknowledged within 5 days. It would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the escalation date. It would provide a clear timeframe to the resident if more time was required.

Scope of Investigation

The resident requested, in an update to the Ombudsman on 9 October 2023, that she would like compensation for a fall and subsequent injury she endured due to a faulty step on the balcony door. This was included in a separate complaint made by the resident which was after the landlords internal complaint process of this investigation and therefore falls outside the scope of this investigation. The Ombudsman will not consider claims of personal injury, as these should be referred to the landlord’s insurers. Unlike the courts or insurance companies, we are not able to make a legally binding determination on whether the landlord has been negligent or whether it is liable for damages.

Summary of events

The landlords repair records show the resident reported an issue with the balcony door on 4 separate occasions between 14 February 2020 and 10 December 2020. Its repair records also state on 20 January 2022, “the metal door is warped and letting in draughts from the unheated balcony area. The combination door frame needs to be replaced complete which we have no funds to do”. Notes suggest this was being looked at for future planned maintenance works.
The landlords repair records also show the bedroom window was reported on 5 occasions between 29 November 2017 and 22 October 2021. These reports were largely around the window not closing properly and being draughty. The landlord recorded the window to be “closing ok” on 16 November 2021.
A letter of claim was issued to the landlord from the residents solicitor on 16 February 2022. The letter of claim noted the following defects:
1. In the living room, a metal shutter door connected to the window did not shut properly and the sealant was faulty, which allowed a draught into the room.
2. There was a draught coming from the bedroom window, which the resident felt was due to the window not being double glazed and not aligned correctly.
The landlord inspected the property on 8 March 2022 and responded to the letter of claim on 24 March 2022. Within its response, the landlord:
1. Accepted no liability for the alleged defects to the door as this was the residents responsibility to repair and maintain.
2. Accepted no liability for the other alleged defects as it did not accept it had been notified of these.
3. Provided a schedule of proposed repair works it would carry out following its inspection on 8 March 2022.
4. Offered no compensation or costs.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord via email on 15 September 2022. Within her complaint, the resident:
1. Said she was tired and disappointed in the way she had been treated by the landlord.
2. Said she had had a problem with the balcony door and bedroom window since moving in.
3. Advised the landlord had come out at least 7 times to try and rectify the issue but the relevant person needed to give consent for the repairs to go ahead.
4. Had got a solicitor and just found out the landlord had said it was not liable to fix the balcony door and window.
5. Said the block was for those over the age of 55 years but children had moved in and residents were not informed of a rule change.
6. Said she could not understand why everyone pays a different rent, she paid £50 every 2 weeks but never had money on her rent account.
7. Said she was confused why the landlord had kept a spare key and she now believed some one had been entering her flat for some time.
8. Said she felt “victimised” and was “trying her best” not to take her own life.
The landlord acknowledged the residents complaint via email, on 21 September 2022 and advised she would be contacted with the next 24 working hours to discuss her concerns.
The resident sent a further email on 22 September 2022 with pictures to show how she stops a draught coming through the door and said the handle was now broken so the door did not close.
The landlord spoke to the resident over the telephone and issued its stage 1 response on 4 October 2022. Within its response the landlord:
1. Confirmed it had kept a key due to “someone in the block” being ill “and emergency services could not access their home”. The key was passed to a contractor to carry out repairs following this. It said it understood the resident was anxious that someone could enter her home without permission and she had installed cameras to alleviate her anxiety. It proposed the key be returned and kept in the key safe outside her door which had been agreed with the housing officer.
2. Confirmed “several repairs” had been completed on the balcony door, including a draught excluder around the door being installed. The balcony was classed as an internal door and therefore the tenants responsibility to maintain as per the tenancy agreement. This was due to the balcony being enclosed by UPVC windows as part of a programme of works. It said it would send a surveyor alongside a contractor to the property to consider a replacement door.
3. Confirmed it received a disrepair claim from the residents solicitor on 16 February 2022 concerning outstanding repairs to the balcony door and bedroom window.
4. Advised of additional support through a helpline.
The resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 6 October 2022. Within her compliant, the resident:
1. Said it was unacceptable that the landlord had a key to her property and did not tell her.
2. Confirmed a draught excluder had been fitted around the balcony door.
3. Said the tenancy agreement did not state anything about a balcony door.
4. Said she truly believed that taking her own life was the only way to get any mental peace and stop the pain of the cold.
5. Asked why the landing on the fifth floor was not being cleaned anymore.
6. Asked where the money she had been paying for her rent had gone.
The landlord responded to the residents escalation via email on 6 October 2022 and said she would be contacted with the next 24 working hours to discuss her concerns.
Internal emails from October 2022, show the landlords concern for the resident following her statement about taking her own life. The landlord noted that it had tried to contact her “immediately” and raised further safeguarding referrals.
On 24 October 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman and said she needed help with 2 situations and had another in the hands of a solicitor. These were:
1. The landlord had a key to her property, which she was unaware of until new doors were fitted. She had requested this key on numerous occasions, involved her MP but still not received it.
2. She paid a top up for her rent every 2 weeks but when she called the landlord there was never any money showing in her rent account. She wanted to know where the money she had paid since January 2022 had gone.
The landlords internal system notes show it returned the key to the resident on 26 October 2022.
The resident called the landlord on 27 October 2022 and confirmed she had the key, her door handle had been repaired and she felt “a lot happier now”.
The landlord had also recorded a call it had made to the resident on 27 October 2022, to arrange a visit on 3 November 2023 to quote for replacing the door unit to the balcony.
The landlords internal system notes show it tried to call the resident on 28 October 2022 and spoke to her on 2 November 2022 to advise it may require further time to gather all the information required to respond to her complaint.
On 3 November 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise it needed an extension to respond. It said the resident should expect a response by 17 November 2022.
The landlord called the resident on 9 November 2022 and booked in the schedule of repair work following the disrepair inspection for her property on 24 and 25 November 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 November 2022. In its response, the landlord:
1. Confirmed the resident had received the key and the door handle had been repaired.
2. Advised as per its conversation with the resident on 3 November 2022, the balcony door and bedroom window was being dealt with by the residents solicitors as a disrepair case. Although the resident had confirmed a surveyor attended on 3 November 2022 and subsequent works were booked in for 24 and 25 November 2022.
3. Apologised the resident was unhappy with the standard of cleaning on the fifth floor. It confirmed the block was cleaned on a Wednesday each week, however with the new kitchen and bathroom upgrades going ahead in the block, foot traffic has increased.
4. Confirmed the resident had spoken to someone from its rent team who explained how rent accounts works a bit more clearly however offered a follow up if required.
5. Gave a very detailed explanation of “payment on time and the bedroom tax”, including payments recently made and the amount and frequency the resident needed to pay.
The landlord called the resident on 24 November 2022 and explained the work could not go ahead as its contractor had not been able to get in touch with her to arrange an asbestos test prior to the works commencing. The landlord passed the contractors number onto the resident. The landlords internal system notes show the resident advised that the asbestos test was completed on 24 November 2022 and later updated it had been returned as negative. The landlord further updated the resident on 13 December 2022 and advised the balcony door unit was due to be replaced on 12 January 2023. The landlords internal system notes show the door was replaced on this day as planned.
On 23 July 2023, the resident contacted the Ombudsman for help and advice, she needed a window repair. Some repairs had been done to a balcony window and door and the bathroom wall, kitchen ceiling and bathroom ceiling had been repaired. The landlord had refused to give compensation. Wiring in the bedroom and hallway needed to be covered. The resident said a surveyor had been to investigate “at least 4 times” and had taken pictures but nothing had been done, 2 years down the line.
The landlord issued a separate stage 1 response on 5 September 2023 about the step to the balcony not being stable, a personal injury due to the step, cabling that needed to be covered up and 2 issues with the shower blocking.
In an update to the Ombudsman, on 9 October 2023, the resident confirmed:
1. The complaint about her rent account and key was resolved.
2. The wiring had not yet been completed.
3. The work in the bathroom was “half done”.
4. After her fall the balcony door had been sorted, she would like compensation for the fall.
5. She would like compensation for the years spent pursuing her complaint.
The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman at the time of this determination that the disrepair claim has not been issued at court, all works had been completed following the letter of claim and no contact had been received from the residents solicitor since March 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of Repairs to the balcony door

In accordance with the landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case. As a result, it was necessary for it to investigate the resident’s repairs reports and take appropriate steps to resolve any issues identified.
Historically, the landlords repair records indicate the landlord took appropriate action in response to the resident’s reports about repairs to the balcony door. It conducted several repairs over this historical period. There is no record of further reports since October 2021 to advise that an ongoing draught issue was not resolved. The Ombudsman would expect for a landlord to be made aware of an issue throughout the time a resident experiences them, to give a landlord sufficient opportunities to resolve the issue.
The landlord acted appropriately following receipt of the letter of claim from the residents solicitor dated 16 February 2022, carrying out an inspection on 8 March 2022 and responding formally, providing an extensive schedule of works on 24 March 2022. It advised in this letter that the balcony door was the residents responsibility as it was considered an internal door following external wrap around works to balconies by the landlord. It is not clear however, why if this was the case, it had carried out several repairs historically to the door. If the resident was responsible for repairing and maintaining this door she should have been made aware of this on her first report of repair in February 2020 or when the balcony was encased with UPVC windows.
It is evident there is a gap in the communications about the balcony door between the landlords response to the letter of claim on 24 March 2022 and the residents complaint made on 15 September 2022. The resident referenced in her complaint about just finding out, from her solicitor that the landlord “was not liable to fix the balcony door and window”. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude the repair was being discussed with her solicitor. The landlord responded to the residents complaint at stage 1 reiterating that the balcony door would be her responsibility but that it would consider a replacement.
The landlords records indicate it was agreed and communicated to the resident on 27 October 2022 that it would replace the balcony door, with this work being completed on 12 January 2023. There is no evidence the length of time the works took equate to maladministration on the part of the landlord or were excessively unreasonable. The above demonstrates the landlord acted generally in accordance with its policies and its repair obligations as a landlord. Once it had agreed to replace the balcony door, it provided updates to the resident, the period of time the replacement took was not out of line with typical timeframes for windows or doors to be manufactured and installed.
The above demonstrates that although the resident’s complaint of draught issues over a period is not necessarily doubted, there is no evidence of any service failing by the landlord in how it handled draught issues reported to it.

The landlord’s handling of Repairs to the bedroom window

As with the balcony door, the landlords repair records indicate it took appropriate action in response to the residents historical reports of repair to the bedroom window. There were no further reports about the bedroom window after 21 October 2021, although it was included in the letter of claim in February 2022.
The landlords to visit the property on 8 March 2023 found no fault with the window and the resident did not report any further repairs following this. The Ombudsman would expect for a landlord to be made aware of an issue throughout the time a resident experiences them, to give a landlord sufficient opportunities to resolve the issue. Furthermore, the residents complaint to the landlord in September 2022 referenced issues with the window since moving in, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the complaint related to historical issues rather than an ongoing issue.
The above demonstrates that although the resident’s complaint of draught issues over a period is not necessarily doubted, there is no evidence of any service failing by the landlord in how it handled the issues reported to it

The landlords handling of the residents complaint.

The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within the target timeframes set out in its complaints policy. It communicated to the resident when it required more time to respond, which was also in line with its policy.
The acknowledgements to the complaint at each stage stated the resident would be contacted within 24 hours to discuss the complaint. No evidence has been seen that the landlord did indeed contact the resident within this specified timeframe and given the extensive records the landlord provided for this investigation it has been unable to demonstrate it did contact the resident within this timeframe, which was not reasonable.
The landlords stage 1 complaint response on 4 October 2022 failed to acknowledge all the points of the residents complaint. It failed to demonstrate that it acknowledged and therefore investigated and responded to the below concerns of the resident:
1. She was tired and disappointed in the way she had been treated by the landlord.
2. The block was for those over the age of 55 years but children had moved in and residents were not informed of a rule change.
3. She could not understand why everyone paid a different rent, she paid £50 every 2 weeks but never had money on her rent account.
4. She felt “victimised”
Although it demonstrated its concern for the residents wellbeing was taken seriously and appropriate referrals of support were made it failed to respond to these concerns in an empathetic manner to the resident through its complaint process. Although the resident only escalated the complaint about her rent account, it was inappropriate for the landlord not to acknowledge all of the residents complaint points in its initial response. Taking the above into consideration a finding of service failure has been made for the landlords handling of the residents complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of uncovered wiring is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom wall is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the balcony door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the bedroom window.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) there has been service failure in the landlord’s handling of the residents complaint.

Reasons

Although the resident’s complaint of draught issues over a period is not necessarily doubted, there is no evidence of any service failing by the landlord in how it handled the reports of repair to the balcony door.
Although the resident’s complaint of draught issues over a period is not necessarily doubted, there is no evidence of any service failing by the landlord in how it handled the reports of repair to the bedroom window.
The landlord failed to acknowledge all aspects of the residents complaint in its initial response, it also failed to demonstrate it contacted the resident within the timeframe specified in its complaint acknowledgement letters.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 for the failures identified for its handling of the resident’s complaint in this report.
The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above order within 4 weeks of this determination.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a review of this case and outline to the Ombudsman its findings in respect of:
1. Its intention to ensure that complaint procedures are followed, it clarifies the residents complaint and its initial response covers all aspects of a residents complaint including noting any points which are not being pursued by the resident. This should include focus on the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.