A & S Hillman Ltd (202016926)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016926

A & S Hillman Ltd

23 March 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 level of compensation offered by the landlord following repairs and improvements works at the residents’ property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The property is a five-bedroom House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO).
The residents are Assured Shorthold tenants, under a joint tenancy agreement, signed on 18 November 2019. This was previously managed by an estate agent but was acquired by the current landlord on 19 August 2020.
The complaint is a group complaint brought to this Service by the lead complainant and her representative. The Ombudsman notes that there are two representatives on this case. For ease of reference, all representatives have been referred to as “the rep”.
The residents are also young students. The property was subsequently vacant for periods of time during public holidays in which the residents returned to their family homes.
The landlord is a private landlord, but a voluntary member of this Service.

Summary of events

On or around early November 2020 the landlord wrote to the residents. It explained that it was planning a loft extension over the Christmas period which would give the residents two further rooms to use and an extra full-suite bathroom. This would be undertaken around the holiday period when the property was likely to be vacant. Works would take 4-5 weeks and would mostly take place on the outside of the property. This would also be followed by a 1–2-week period in which the builders would enter the property to add a staircase. The landlord requested that the residents provide some feedback on this and the likely dates they were planning to return to their family homes for Christmas.
On 17 November 2020 the residents responded. They explained that as two of them would be working on their study placement during this period and would not be leaving the property earlier than 20 December 2020 (with the intention of returning two weeks later), there were concerns about the potential level of noise. A request was made to discuss this with all residents in further detail.
The landlord subsequently proposed to arrange a call between all residents, the builders, and itself to provide the residents with an opportunity to ask any questions they had. The Ombudsman can see that the residents confirmed that they were happy with this and that the call took place on 19 November 2020. The landlord also shared the contact numbers for the builders with the residents and arranged a point of contact.
The Ombudsman can see that the residents reported a leak in one of the bedrooms on 23 November 2020.
On 25 November 2020 the landlord was advised by the residents that the upstairs radiators were not working. While it appears from the language used that this was not the first time this had been raised, this Service has seen no records of an earlier report.
A Gas Engineer subsequently undertook an inspection at the property on 2 December 2020. The landlord confirmed for the residents on the same day that on discussion with the engineer, the boiler needed to be replaced. It advised that it would seek to do so as soon as possible and would also look at replacing some radiators.
The landlord has explained to this Service that scaffolding was erected at the property on 5 December 2020 with works beginning in the days which followed.
On 26 December 2020 the landlord wrote to the residents. It advised that the works were ahead of plan and that the next stage would be the decoration of the property which would be less noisy than the structural work had been. The landlord explained that it would liaise with the builder to establish the level of noise that could be expected if the residents were to return to the property around 9 January 2021. It also confirmed that a new boiler had been fitted on 15 December 2020.
The landlord explained that it had also considered that compensation was due for the inconvenience caused during this time. It had therefore taken the decision to offer £150 to each resident for the nuisance caused. This would be deducted from the following months’ rent.
In response on the same day, the resident’s rep asserted that there had been a lack of heating over the previous few months and a reluctance from the landlord to get this working. The property had also allegedly been turned in to a building site while it was still occupied. The rep expressed that this work should have been completed during the summer break to avoid disruption to the residents. As such, the rep did not consider the offer of £150 to be sufficient. He suggested that the full rent amount be waived until the summer break or that the landlord make an offer closer to this.
Through back-and-forth text conversation, the landlord explained to the rep that it did not believe the compensation request to be reasonable. It explained that by improving the standard of the property, there would be additional bedroom and bathroom space for the residents to use, with no adjustments to their existing agreement. It explained that it would agree to increase the compensation offer to £215 which was a 50% discount on the rent amount for each resident. It asserted that it could not have completed the works any sooner as there was a planning period which it had to first observe. The rep highlighted, however, that the landlord stood to benefit from the additional rooms when the property was later rented out and that the residents had not asked for this additional space.
It appears that the rep put forward a series of questions on or around this time which the Ombudsman has not seen. The landlord responded to this on 28 December 2020. It stated:
1. There were several reasons why it had attempted to conduct the works during the winter period. The condition of the roof and insulation had been raised in the Homebuyer’s Survey and needed to be addressed as a priority. What’s more, upon completion of the property purchase, a “snagging” list had been provided which included issues such as damp which had not been addressed by the previous agents. The landlord noted that there had also recently been a leak in one of the rooms which was the result of the condition of the roof.
2. Given the works required, the decision was taken to pursue a loft conversion at the same time. This provided the opportunity to replace and insulate the pitched roof, improving the thermal efficiency and EPC rating of the whole house, while also providing more living space and wash facilities. The landlord explained that it believed all works would result in lower heating bills which was an added benefit for the residents.
3. By addressing the roof issue during the winter, and at the earliest possible opportunity, it would be able to ensure that the residents could enjoy a warmer, leak free house sooner. It explained that it operated on the premise that most students would return to their homes during the 2nd or 3rd week of December which provided an ideal window for most works. Tenants were also scheduled to move in during the summer, replacing the current residents.
4. Residents were provided with notification of the works. A zoom call was arranged to allow the residents to be consulted and to hear more about the building process. It was made clear that some disruption would be unavoidable, however in return, they would have an extra washing facility, and a new living space. Residents were asked about their availability during the call and the builders had the opportunity to hear about the concerns. After the call, (on 21 November 2020) the residents were also provided with the plans and advised that they could raise any concerns or oppose the work all together.
5. The builders had been vetted onsite and a 24/7 point of contact was put in place. There were also daily calls with the builders to ensure that works were going to plan and fortnightly visits. The disruption experienced was mostly noise, but the landlord noted that the presence of builders did encroach on the privacy of the residents too. It explained that while the property was still habitable, the residents’ stay had not been 100% comfortable during this period. A 50% reduction in rent had therefore been offered to reflect this period.
The landlord advised that it would visit the property on the following day to ensure that everything was safe and going to plan. As the structural work had been completed, however, the worst of the disruption was over, with only light work remaining. It confirmed that it had spoken with the builders and that they had not accessed the property other than to access the fuse box or the water stopcock. The builders were believed to be highly experienced and professional.
On 29 December 2020 the rep thanked the landlord for its correspondence. The rep advised, however:
1. The consultation process was not enough. In his opinion, the zoom call and “a couple of discussions” had the effect of railroading the residents into agreement. The rep asserted that, as inexperienced young students, they would have agreed to anything when faced with the landlord who could potentially make their lives difficult or evict them if they disagreed.
2. There was no mention of serious disruption upon signing the tenancy agreement. The tenancy would not have been taken up if this was mentioned at the onset.
3. The letting agent should have been involved and should have been looking after the residents’ rights. The residents had received little contact from them.
4. The privacy and safety of the residents had been understated. The rep questioned who vetted the builders and the criteria that had been used. The workmen had also entered the property to use the facilities, such as the kettle. During this time, there were residents present in the property. The rep asserted that one resident had moved out prematurely as she was unhappy with the situation, and another had switched rooms as a workman had put his foot through the ceiling.
5. The boiler had not heated the house properly from day one and as the months got colder, some of the students struggled with this. The residents had not complained as vigorously as they might have as they did not want to appear difficult.
6. Each student paid approximately £425 per calendar month. Upon calculating the total rent payable over the year, the compensation offered was less than 5%.
The rep requested that the landlord reconsider the request for an increased amount of compensation.
Correspondence suggests that residents began returning to the property on 3 January 2021. At this time, works to the internal staircase had not yet been started and the internal decoration works upstairs still remained outstanding.
On 4 January 2021 the landlord wrote to the rep. It explained:
1. It had to act quickly during the Christmas period, although this period was not as long as it would have liked.
2. As a landlord, it did have a right to conduct improvement and repair works. It acknowledged, however, that this work should be done in accordance with the tenant’s rights to use the property without interference or nuisance, and therefore, compensation was being offered.
3. The letting agent only managed the tenancy for the first few months on behalf of the previous landlord. This service was no longer provided by the letting agent.
4. The builders occasionally needed to enter the property to access electricity for their tools and to turn off services. Builders were reminded on 29 December 2020 that they needed to be courteous and to avoid entering the property for other reasons. They would no longer be using the kettle and residents were encouraged to report any such incidents if they occurred.
5. With respect of the vetting, it had checked the references from past projects, spoken to each contractor, and assessed their right to work. While this was not usually its responsibility, it sought additional reassurance for the residents and itself. The landlord acknowledged that there had been an accident where a contractor damaged the ceiling and noted that this had since been repaired.
6. Upon visiting the property at the end of August 2020 the residents were shown how to use the boiler. The boiler was also tested and found to be functioning, and the communal radiators were heating up. The landlord explained that it was up to the residents to run the heating in the property and to report any issues found in a timely fashion. It noted that upon receiving a report that two radiators were not heating up, on 25 November 2020, the issue was diagnosed with a gas engineer and the boiler / radiators were replaced throughout the property.
7. The compensation amount was not determined by the full contract value but rather, “the duration of any avoidable distress or inconvenience”.
The landlord explained that it had arrived at its compensation amount using the Housing Ombudsman Service’s (HOS) guidance, taking into account any actual proven financial loss, any avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment, or unfair impact. It explained that using this guidance, it considered the period of avoidable distress to be the period in which the building work took place. It noted that the severity of the impact was subjective, but the property was habitable despite the disruption, and also that the property was vacant for two weeks over the Christmas period which reduced the amount of stress experienced. In light of this, it benchmarked its compensation offer against that of similar HOS cases and believed that its offer of £1,075 was fair and proportionate. The landlord provided the rep with three example cases from this Service.
On 9 January 2021 the landlord explained to the residents that works would be paused for two days, until 12 January 2021. The Ombudsman can see that at this time, the residents queried when works would be completed to two of the bedrooms which seem to have sustained damage, as one of the residents had not been staying in the room. The landlord confirmed that while works remained, the room could still be occupied, and plastering works would commence on the weekend.
On 22 February 2021 the rep wrote to the landlord with a formal complaint. He stated that providing the works finished on 20-21 February 2021 as suggested, he wished to make a compensation request of three months’ rent. The rep included many of the same points above and added:
1. Consultation with the estate agents confirmed that it was contrary to normal practice for landlords of student accommodation to undertake works during the tenancy as opposed to over the summer holiday.
2. The roof may have been in poor condition but any leaks, of which there was only one, could have been easily fixed without the need for three months disruption. Any improvement works only benefited the residents for a few months and in no way compensated them for the disruption.
3. A comprehensive schedule of works detailing the disruption that would be experienced was not given. The Zoom consultation was inadequate, and the estimated duration of works (four weeks) was unrealistic.
4. The builders had covered up the flue to the boiler, leading to a build up of Carbon Monoxide (CO) and flammable methane which could have led to fatalities. The residents subsequently had to call out an emergency engineer who had to cap the gas supply, disconnect the boiler, and declared it dangerous to use.
5. The builders had not worn the appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) yet had routinely used the facilities within the property. This had increased the risk of infection. The builders had also taken the back door key for some time, depriving the residents of an escape route in the event of a fire.
6. It did not properly consider the plans of the residents. One resident remained in the property until 20 December 2020 and had attempted to make a conscious attempt to remain COVID free (due to a family member being clinically extremely vulnerable). Her / her family’s safety was put at risk being a lone resident and in the absence of PPE.
7. One of the bedrooms had been reduced in size and was out of bounds for two weeks. Luckily, another bedroom was available at this time.
8. The noise had been considerably disruptive and intrusive resulting in two residents having to leave to get some sleep and others returning to their family homes weekly. This increased their risk of contracting COVID-19.
9. Building works had led to the smoke alarms being tripped constantly. This resulted in the alarms being disconnected, compromising the safety of the residents. What’s more, despite a CO alarm being fitted, it did not trigger when there was a build up to dangerous levels.
10. The decision to undertake the loft conversion in the winter resulted in the property being very cold.
11. The environment was not preferable to what would normally be expected in a shared student house and may have had a negative impact on the performance of residents who had an exam at this time.
12. There was a lack of privacy and reduced sense of security.
On 8 March 2021 the landlord provided the resident with a stage one complaint response. It apologised for the disruption caused by the building work and reiterated its earlier responses. The landlord additionally explained:
1. The issues raised regarding the heating / boiler had been responded to within a reasonable amount of time and so would not be taken into consideration for the compensation. Once the issue with the boiler and radiator were diagnosed by its engineer, these were replaced. Residents were not without hot water or heating and the issue related to the delivery of heat to two rooms in particular.
2. When the boiler issue was raised, this was reported within 24 hours. The engineer then confirmed that the appropriate error code was presented as an effective control to alert the residents and manage the risk. The landlord explained that the CO alarm likely did not trigger as there was not enough CO in the room. It noted that a measurement was taken directly next to the flue which would have likely contributed to the high reading. A second alarm had been fitted in the kitchen in any case.
3. While it was agreed that there had been some disruption and subsequently that compensation was due, much of the points raised were subjective. It had approached the builders to establish whether masks had been worn and was reassured that they were. The landlord accepted that there may have been times that this did not happen, however.
4. The data from the smart thermostat had been viewed from the period of the building work and there were no periods in which the temperature dropped below 18 degrees while the boiler was functioning. It therefore disputed that the property was “very cold”. It appreciated, nonetheless, that there would have been an increased heating usage and a greater loss of heat until the new roof was installed.
The landlord subsequently concluded that the compensation requested (£6,499.98) was unreasonable and disproportionate. It stated that three months compensation suggested a 100% impact during the entire period of the works. It noted that the residents had use of the property and services during the building duration, despite the works being disruptive. Work had been conducted from the exterior of the property for six weeks and the builders had only “broke through” on 12 January 2021. It added that the impact from the works was also periodic as the builders worked a maximum of 6 days a week and during working hours. There was also no works during the 6 day “tool down” quiet period agreed between 10-11, and 14-19 January 2021. It therefore would not uphold the compensation request.
The landlord explained that to support with the resolution, it had applied to become a voluntary member of HOS and therefore recommended that the rep forward the complaint to this Service. It advised that resolving the issue via an alternative dispute resolution service would offer both parties piece of mind.
The landlord has confirmed with this Service that works were fully completed, and the new space available from the first week of March 2021.
The landlord also advised this Service that a complaint was made by the residents to the fire service, however a “no further action” decision was agreed.
On 27 March 2021 the rep wrote to the landlord. He set out that while the landlord had acknowledged in its response that compensation was due, it did not state what it thought was a fair amount. An agreement subsequently had not been reached. The rep advised, in any case, that he still wished to pursue a claim for three months’ rent. The landlord was therefore urged to reconsider the claim or to propose a counteroffer which it considered to be fair.
On 4 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with its final response. It reiterated the above reasons why it found the request for compensation to be unreasonable and concluded on this basis that it believed £1,250, an increase from £215 per resident to £250 per resident, to be a proportionate offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

In itself, it is not unreasonable for a landlord to plan and undertake improvement works to its property. It is good practice for landlords to seek to improve living conditions for tenants and to refresh its properties to ensure that they are up to standard. While it is best practice for landlords of student accommodation to carry out major works during the summer holidays, often in between lettings, this Service recognises that this is not always possible.
In this case, the Ombudsman can see that the landlord sought to increase the living space by adding two additional bedrooms and a full-suite bathroom via a loft conversion. While the value of this has been contested, and the rep has explained that there was no desire from the occupants for the additional rooms, the added space and facilities would have been a benefit for the residents for the duration of their tenancy. This cannot be overlooked.
The Ombudsman would, however, expect a landlord to consider the practicality of undertaking works, and the impact that such works could have on the residents occupying the property.
It was therefore appropriate that in the first instance, the landlord shared its intention to undertake improvement works with the residents. Where disruption and nuisance were likely to occur in the form of noise and building works, and would therefore impact the residents’ tenancy, the landlord had a responsibility to consult residents.
In practice, fair consultation here would involve providing the residents with sufficient detail on the scale of the work, the likely impact, the likely duration of the works, and an opportunity to raise questions and/or openly oppose the works altogether at the formative stage. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was therefore both reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to arrange a zoom meeting with the residents, itself, and the builders so that this could be done.
The Ombudsman has not had the benefit of reviewing the matters discussed during this meeting, but is satisfied that the landlord facilitated an environment for fair consultation to take place. It does not appear that the residents objected to works going ahead.
Although the rep has suggested that the extent of this consultation was insufficient and that it had the effect of railroading young unexperienced students into agreeing with the proposal, the Ombudsman cannot comment on this. From the Ombudsman’s perspective though, it was fair that the landlord opened this up for discussion with the residents given its intentions and as the young students were the current occupants of the property.
The Ombudsman does appreciate that it might have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered the residents more time to consider the proposal (potentially to run this by their parents) and to understand the implications. There is no evidence that the landlord proposed any follow-up meetings or discussions to provide scope for final comments or concerns. With this said, however, it also does not appear that the residents had any further concerns after the consultation on 19 November 2020, and if they did, the Ombudsman cannot see that these were raised. It was subsequently not unreasonable that the landlord went ahead with the works.
What’s more, the landlord has explained that following the Homebuyer’s Survey, a number of issues were identified with the roof and insulation at the property. The landlord also advised the resident and this Service that its builders recommended (verbally) that roof works needed to be prioritised and undertaken. As the Ombudsman has not had sight of the survey report, and was not privy to the conversation had with the builders, it is unclear how urgent the roof works actually were. On receiving reports of a leak at the property, however, it was reasonable that the landlord decided to take action to address this at the same time as the improvement works.
Under the tenancy agreement, and also within the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obligated to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes ensuring that the roof is in good condition. Therefore, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take steps to address this at the earliest possible, and practical, opportunity.
In light of this need to undertake repairs to the roof /insulation, and the landlord’s desire to undertake improvement works, it was not unreasonable that it took the decision to do so over the Christmas period. This would have been the first opportunity in which the property would have been vacant for a period of time (although not enough time) and was soon after the leak had been experienced (within the landlord’s 28-day turnaround time to address issues). The landlord explained to the rep that works had not been undertaken at an earlier time as there was a planning period after purchasing the property which first had to be observed.
It was fair for the rep to assert that had the landlord undertaken the works during the summer period, this would have resulted in little disruption for the residents who would have likely vacated the property by this time. The rep explained that based on his research, this was common practice. Still, however, it is accepted that the landlord was obligated to undertake works to prevent any future leaks as soon as possible and to address the roof / insulation issue. The decision to do so along with a loft conversion, given the crossover in works, was practical. It would have been inappropriate for the landlord to have left the roof works outstanding until the summer holiday.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord did make a reasonable effort to establish when the property would become vacant. With notice that the property would still be occupied up until 20 December 2020 at the earliest, however, it is unclear why the landlord took the decision to start the works before this time. The Ombudsman notes that the works started soon after the scaffolding was erected on 5 December 2020 and that during this time, there was also some accidental damage resulting in a resident having to change rooms.
It was reasonable, nonetheless, that the landlord recognised that this had resulted in an adverse experience for the residents. In its update to the residents on 26 December 2020 it subsequently provided reassurance that the level of noise would be reduced as the structural works had been completed. It also accepted that it had inconvenienced the residents throughout this time.
As a result, and following back and forth discussion with the rep, the landlord consequently proposed to compensate the residents by reducing the rent by 50% for the month. In the Ombudsman’s view, this offer was reasonable, but did not go far enough. This is as while it fairly accounted for the disruption experienced up until this time, there was no consideration or provisions made for the following months in which the landlord was aware works would continue and disruption would be experienced.
Although the landlord had initially discussed a timescale with the residents in which works were likely to be completed, it is clear that it misjudged this. As the rep asserted in the stage one complaint, had the landlord solely addressed the roof works, it may have avoided the ensuing three months of disruption. This encroached on the residents’ right to “quiet enjoyment of the property without any interruption”, as set out in the tenancy agreement, and for longer than expected and agreed.
In arriving at a fair compensation amount, the Ombudsman accepts the landlord’s assertion that works were not undertaken all day, every day. The Ombudsman also notes that up until 12 January 2021, the majority of works were undertaken externally. It was therefore fair that the landlord declined the rep’s request to waive the rent for the remainder of the residents’ stay and/or for three full months. A compensation amount of £6,499.98 would have been far in excess of what this Service would expect to see in this type of case, taking all the circumstances into consideration.
It is understandable, still, that while the works may not have been all day, every day, the consistent ongoing activity and presence of builders would have interrupted the ability to quietly enjoy the property and also impacted the residents’ privacy. There was therefore a need to revisit the offer of compensation to reflect the timeframe in which works remained ongoing.
As the landlord rightfully explained, it was not required to consider its annual rental income in its calculation of compensation. This Service would expect landlords to offer reasonable and proportionate compensation based on any failure in service and the extent of the adverse impact (taking into account the duration of any avoidable distress and inconvenience).
It was fair that on providing its final response, the landlord agreed to increase its compensation to £250 per person. It was also good practice that the landlord referred to previous decisions determined by this Service to establish a benchmark and directed the rep to these cases to demonstrate how it had arrived at its offer.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, noting that the property was vacant for two weeks during the Christmas period, that the landlord’s internal works only began on 12 January 2021, and that there was a period in which the landlord stopped works to accommodate studies / exams, this offer of compensation was satisfactory. The Ombudsman has also considered that although only for a short period, the residents also would have been able to enjoy the new space.
It is additionally noted that the landlord refused to offer compensation for the issues experienced with the heating / boiler. In view of the evidence available, this reasonable.
While the rep has alleged that the heating in the property had been an issue from the start of the tenancy, no evidence has been provided of this. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that this matter was brought to the landlord’s attention at any point before 25 November 2020. This Service is therefore unable to assess the landlord’s response to the residents’ heating concerns, or to hold the landlord accountable for matters it would have been unaware of. It is also worth noting that the current landlord would have only become responsible for any boiler issues upon acquiring the property (in August 2020), and not for any issues faced at the start of the tenancy.
According to the landlord, the boiler functioning had been tested in August 2020 and was left working appropriately. Subsequently, as it rightfully explained in its response on 4 January 2021, if this ceased to be the case soon after, it was the residents’ responsibility to bring it to its attention at the earliest opportunity.
The Ombudsman has noted the rep’s comment that the residents had not complained as vigorously as they might have as they did not want to appear difficult, and this is understandable. Without bringing the matter to the landlord’s attention for repair, however, the landlord would have been unable to take the steps expected by this Service to uphold its repair responsibility.
It is noted that where the report was made, the landlord responded to this relatively quickly and after diagnosing an issue with the boiler, replaced the boiler and two radiators on 15 December 2020. This was appropriate. The Ombudsman is subsequently satisfied that the landlord’s approach was not unfair.
Furthermore, outside of the noise nuisance and disruption caused by the works, the rep also raised issues with the conduct and professionalism of the builders. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord offered assurance that a vetting process had been undertaken. While it was not unreasonable that the resident questioned the thoroughness of the vetting process, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord explained some due diligence was undertaken. It is worth noting that although the landlord was not required to undertake the checks that it did, it is expected to take reasonable measures.
With respect of COVID-19 precautions, while the landlord accepted that there could have been times where the builders had not worn the appropriate PPE, it disputed that this was a frequent occurrence, having spoken to the builders. The Ombudsman is unable to establish whether this did or did not take place, but would suggest that if such activity was occurring, this should have been brought to the landlord’s attention at the time so that the matter could be raised with the builders. As the landlord explained, it was in contact with the builders on a daily basis.
In a similar respect, this Service has noted the rep’s assertion that a resident had been actively avoiding contact with people over the Christmas period to avoid any later risks to a clinically vulnerable family member. While this Service appreciates that the subsequent presence of builders would have made this difficult and increased her / her family’s risk, this should have been brought to the landlord’s attention so that reasonable arrangements could be made. The Ombudsman can see that where the rep expressed dissatisfaction that the builders had been accessing the property to use the facilities such as the kettle, the landlord made contact with the builders to ensure that this activity stopped and advised the rep / residents to report any further such activity so that action could be taken. This was appropriate.
For completeness, while this Service appreciates that the residents may not have taken up their tenancy with the knowledge that the landlord would undertake improvement works at some point, it was not a requirement for this to be outlined within the agreement. Where such works are concerned, this Service would consider reasonable consultation to be sufficient.
Moreover, the rep explained that the builders had taken the backdoor key, which deprived residents of an escape route in the event of a fire. While this may have been the case, it does not appear that this was brought to the landlord’s attention upon discovering the missing key. The landlord was therefore not presented with the opportunity to retrieve the key from the builders, or to assure the residents that the remaining exits were sufficient fire escape routes.
Finally, in respect of the hazard allegedly created by the builders covering the boiler flue, the landlord has not disputed this. The landlord also acknowledged that the CO alarm had not triggered, despite the high level of CO recorded.
While the Ombudsman would not consider this to be a failure in service, but rather a mistake on the builder’s part, given the risk this presented and that an emergency engineer had to attend, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have empathised more and to have acknowledged the inconvenience. It was fair, nonetheless, that the landlord attempted to offer an explanation for why the alarm may not have sounded, and also that it took steps to install a second alarm. The landlord has advised this Service that a complaint was raised with the fire brigade who took no further action.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, in respect of the level of compensation offered by the landlord following repairs and improvements works at the residents’ property, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

While this Service has recognised that the landlord’s approach could have been better, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord acted fairly and put things right, in line with HOS’ dispute resolution principles. Its offer of compensation fairly reflected the extent of its service failure.
In such cases, quantifying the level of compensation required can be difficult and so this Service appreciates that the residents / rep sought to pursue a greater amount. In the Ombudsman’s view, however, the landlord’s offer was proportionate to the level of disruption likely experienced, the length of time that the matter went on for, and the level of compensation that this Service might reasonably offer for a similar case and under HOS’ Remedies Guidance.

Recommendations

If the landlord has not done so already, it should make the proposed payment to the residents within four weeks of receiving this determination.
This Service appreciates that, as a new member of the Scheme, the landlord would not have implemented all of the requirements of this Service by the time of the final response. No subsequent comments have been made with respect of the landlord’s handling of the complaint. In future cases, however, the landlord should ensure that upon providing residents with a final response, they are advised on how / where they can pursue their complaints further if they remain dissatisfied. Further information on how landlords can tell residents about this Service can be found here.
To ensure compliance with the comment above, and with the additional expectations of this Service, the landlord should thoroughly review the Complaint Handling Code, available here.
The landlord should also complete the self-assessment form as required under the complaint handling code and return it to this Service within eight weeks of receiving this report. The self-assessment can be found here.