Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Babergh District Council (202208598)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208598

Babergh District Council

3 August 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 response to the resident’s report about unsafe electrics in the property.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

  1. The resident is the secure tenant of the property, a two-bedroom house owned by the landlord, with her child. The tenancy began on 18 April 2022.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord, on 19 April 2022, that plaster was crumbling around a light switch, there were exposed wires where the plaster had fallen off and sockets and switches that needed to be plastered. She stated that she was unable to move into the property as it was dangerous. In further communication, she informed the landlord that the wiring was dangerous, and some plug sockets were packed with tissue. She stated that she had retained her former property until 15 May 2022 but was unable to pay rent for both properties. As her housing benefit could not commence until she moved in, she was worried about losing her tenancy if she did not pay her rent.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint on the issues and the landlord contacted her on 29 April 2022 to inform her that it had put her account on hold whilst her concerns were resolved. In its stage one decision of 4 May 2022, the landlord stated that it had been advised that the resident was “happy with the information and explanations given regarding works completed at the property whilst void.” It, therefore, did not need to take further action on the matter.
  4. Following further communication with the landlord on the works, the resident made another stage one complaint on 15 June 2022. A further stage one complaint response was provided to the resident by the landlord. She stated that she had been informed by the landlord that it was her responsibility to resolve the issues she reported. It had provided a date for the electrics to be inspected and she had finally moved into the property as she had already incurred rent arrears which she could not afford.
  5. In its further stage one complaint response of, the landlord informed the resident that various operatives had attended the property a number of times. The inspections found that there was nothing dangerous that would prevent her living in the property. It acknowledged that its “making good” could have been better but the resident agreed to decorate.
  6. Following her escalation of the matter the landlord provided a stage two decision, on 26 July 2022 in which it reiterated its previous response. It also maintained that the property was completely rewired whilst empty and had passes electrical safety checks and certification.

Assessment and findings

Report about unsafe electrics

  1. In the tenancy agreement it states that the resident must report any faults, repairs, or damage to the property immediately by contacting the landlord. The landlord will maintain and repair installation of electricity. The resident is responsible only for electrical trips or requirement of fuses and replacing of lamps or bulbs.
  2. The landlord’s minimum standards before a tenant moves into a property required it to complete a full safety test of electrical systems in the property, remove non-landlord electrical fittings or fittings installed by a previous tenant. It follows an Electrical Safety Policy, issued on 14 September 2021, that all work will be carried out in accordance with current legislation and best practice.
  3. In February 2022, the landlord completed work to the property, including renewing electrics in the kitchen. An electrician completed a Domestic Electrical Installation Certificate for the property on 5 April 2022, which was signed by a supervisor on 6 April 2022. This included a rewire of the whole installation, including surge protection Arc Fault Detection Device (AFDD) to a new consumer unit.
  4. The landlord completed a check on 13 April 2022 and found the property complete and ready to let. It provided the resident with a copy of its electric installation safety checks for the property on 14 April 2022, however, her reports of 19 April 2022 disputed the safety of the electrics. In her further email of 26 April 2022, she stated that she could not move into the property due to her concerns about the electrical safety and described exposed wires and connections.
  5. The documents provided to this Service indicate that the resident was provided with sufficient evidence that a full rewire of the property was completed prior to her tenancy start. The certification for this was compliant with British safety standards and should ordinarily have allayed her fears about the wiring. The notion the property was unsafe is reduced by the completion of the Domestic Electrical Installation Certificate and its approval by a qualified supervisor. There was also no expert report disputing the safety of the electrics, thus, this Service finds that the landlord was accurate in stating that the resident could have moved into the property at the start of her tenancy.
  6. When the resident raised the issue of the property being unsafe on 19 April 2022 and chased a response on 26 April, the landlord advised on 29 April 2022 that it would be putting her account on hold to investigate the issue. This was because she stated that she was unable to pay rent on her previous accommodation as well as the property and mentioned that she had to pay for redecoration. The staff member who responded to her also asked whether she had requested for postponement of the tenancy start date.
  7. It was reasonable that the landlord proactively put the resident’s account on hold whilst her concerns were investigated. Furthermore, it was reasonable that it would expect the resident to clarify to the appropriate department that she wanted a later start date. No evidence has been provided to this Service of the resident requesting a later start date.
  8. The resident stated that she was unable to move in until 10 May 2022, but the landlord suggested in its stage one complaint response that she had accepted the information provided with respect to the works at void stage and no longer disputed the matter. She did, however, go on to raise further concerns on the 4 May 2022 by providing photographs which purported to show that finishing was poor around light switches, socket plates and walls.
  9. On 23 May 2022 the resident telephoned the landlord, and it was agreed all plug sockets in the property would be checked by the landlord. Part of the issues to be considered was the resident’s discovery of tissue in plug sockets and regarding which she expressed worry about potential electric shocks or shorting. The landlord completed the check for this on 20 June 2022 and concluded that the electrics were safe.
  10. The landlord has been unable to provide details of the dates when the original contractors were able to revisit the property which would have verified its point about reattending the property. This was poor record keeping by the landlord.
  11. In its Void Standard policy, the landlord states that it would “leave all rooms in a condition that they are ready for incoming tenant to decorate.” It states that it will offer compensation or vouchers to an incoming tenant where a property is in poor decorative order. In the tenancy agreement it states that the resident is responsible for decoration.
  12. The landlord acknowledged in its second stage one response to the resident that the finishing in the property “could have been better.” However, it also mentioned that the resident had agreed to decorating the property and any issues were minor. In her email to the landlord of 26 April 2022, the resident mentioned that she was undertaking decoration of the property. It is expected that she would have viewed the property before taking up the tenancy and that would have been the appropriate time for raising any issues with the finishing. No evidence had been provided to this Service that she did rise any issues prior to 19 April 2022. This Service finds that the landlord’s response on this issue was, therefore, reasonable.
  13. The landlord, in its final response to the complaint, mentioned the resident’s statement that she was uncomfortable being asked to check behind plug sockets. It also stated that there had been several inspections of the electrics, However, it provided no dates or records to show that any of these visits occurred between 19 April 2022 when the original report was made and 20 June 2022. It would have been unreasonable for it to advise the resident to check behind the plugs herself. Being aware of the inherent danger of doing so, it is expected that the landlord would have clarified that this was not the right advice while providing evidence of the visits it referred to.
  14. From the foregoing, this Service concludes that, while the evidence indicates that the landlord did provide sufficient documentation to show that the electrics in the property were safe before the start of the tenancy. However, it has failed to provide evidence in support of its assertions that it did conduct timely visits to the property after her report. It has also not taken seriously her reports of being asked to check the plugs herself. It must also be noted that only one socket was found to have tissue in it when the operatives visited.
  15. There is sufficient evidence to show the property was safe for habitation, thus, the landlord’s refusal to accommodate the resident’s request to change the date of the tenancy or remove the rent arrears, was reasonable. Besides, as stated previously she was advised by the landlord, in April 2022, to request a delay to the tenancy. This was her responsibility to undertake if she found that she was unable to move in on the original tenancy start date. It was, of course, within the landlord’s discretion to decide if it would grant her request as there was no evidence of the electrics being unsafe. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about her options regarding paying her rent arrears as this is a contractual requirement of her tenancy.

The landlord’s complaint response

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge stage one complaints within 5 working days and respond fully in 10 days. It will acknowledge stage two complaints within 5 working days and respond fully in 20 working days. Its stage one and stage response time can be extended by 10 working days if necessary and discussed with the complainant.
  2. The landlord completed two stage one complaints as the resident did not request for the escalation of her case after the previous decision and made another complaint instead. It would have been reasonable for it to advise the resident that, as she was essentially raising the same issues again within a short timescale, it would be escalating it and providing her with a stage two decision.
  3. The first stage one complaint provided limited information, did not show how the matter had been considered, or how the landlord came to the conclusion that the resident was satisfied with the information it had provided. It is noted, however, that it was responsive in considering the second stage one complaint. Its decision on this occasion was more thorough and within reasonable standards for a formal complaint response.
  4. The first and second stage one complaint responses were both provided within the 10 working days timescale for response. The stage two complaint response was provided to the resident 4 days outside of the 20 working days timescale. It would have been reasonable, and good practice, for the landlord to both acknowledge and apologise for this delay.
  5. The shortcomings noted with respect to the complaint handling are not of a level to warrant a finding of maladministration, however, the landlord has been advised to review its complaint handling practices. This is to ensure that it consistently meets the requirements of the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about unsafe electrics in the property.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration with respect to the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.

Orders

  1. This Service orders that within the next four weeks the landlord apologises in writing to the resident for its poor response to her assertions that she was asked to check behind plug sockets herself and confirms that it would give a more thorough consideration to her concerns going forward.

Recommendations

  1. While the landlord has completed the Ombudsman’s self-assessment on the complaint handling code, this Service recommends that it reviews its complaint procedure and considers retraining all relevant staff members on adherence with the code requirements.
  2. The landlord should strongly consider reviewing its record keeping practices to ensure that it adequately records and retains logs, and makes these available when required.