Barnet Council (202011365)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011365

Barnet Homes

13 April 2021

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:
   1. handling of damage to the bathroom door;
   2. decision not to install/replace bedroom doors in the property.

Background and summary of events

2. Following a leak from the property above in 2014, the bathroom door expanded and would not open or close properly. The landlord’s ‘work order’ records for 13 August 2014 show ‘door to bathroom damaged and will need to be replaced’ followed by an entry the next day which said, ‘new flush door required’, ‘renew ply faced internal quality door’. On 2 October 2014, a further order showed that a recall on a previous job was required as the resident reported that ‘doors need retrimming after previous leak damage’, ‘door damaged/stiff/not closing; bathroom door’. A further work order dated 3 December 2014 was described as a recall to ‘check lock to bathroom door’. 
3. The problem arose again in 2019, trapping the resident inside the bathroom. The landlord’s call log dated 29 March 2019 shows a call received about replacing the door in the bathroom due to water damage, and that a ‘ply faced internal quality’ door should be used, and the doorframe should be overhauled. A log made on 29 March 2019 referred to the replacement of the bathroom door which it said should have been a job to ‘renew’, apologies had been made and arrangements made for 11 April 2019 for the door to be replaced a second time.
4. On 10 September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord and said that the property had been offered to him with no bedroom doors, but he was promised they would be installed. He said the previous tenant was disabled, and the doors had been removed to allow wheelchair access. He said that bedroom doors were a necessity and asked if internal doors were not the landlord’s responsibility, why was the bathroom door being replaced? He said he had contacted his local Councillor, would take legal advice, and asked for a copy of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
5. The landlord responded the same day, confirming that it would not install a solid timber door to the bathroom and suggested that the resident should accept the door offered. In relation to the bedroom doors, the landlord said that the position remained the same as at the tenancy start date in 2007, and it would not replace internal doors. An internal email indicated that the resident wished to escalate the issue to a complaint.
6. A complaint was logged on 15 September 2020 and, on 17 September 2020, internal emails indicated that the resident had been made aware that internal doors were his responsibility.
7. Further internal emails of 22 September 2020 recorded that the Senior Voids and Lettings Officer had had a long conversation with the resident and a friend about the missing doors but, having checked the records, could find nothing about doors missing when the resident moved in in 2007. The landlord stated that the policy was clear, that it did not install internal doors other than fire doors within a multi dwelling. It was noted that a member of staff attended the property initially when internal doors were photographed and appeared to be damaged by the occupants and not missing as portrayed. The member of staff then clarified that the bedroom doors were missing, and that the resident had removed the doors and thrown them away, but when asked further, the resident was very vague about what had happened to the doors. 
8. Photographs provided by the landlord show doorways which appear to have no doors, and two other doors damaged with puncture holes, as if they had been punched or kicked. There is also a photograph of what was confirmed by the landlord to be the bathroom door, with damage at its base.
9. In the landlord’s Stage 1 response of 29 September 2020, it defined the complaint as being that when the resident viewed the property in 2007, two bedroom doors were missing, and the Housing Officer (HO) at the time had said they would be replaced. However, when the resident moved in the doors were still missing and he said he had followed this up with the landlord several times. He also said that the bathroom door required replacing as it no longer opened/closed effectively.
10. The landlord apologised for the poor service and said it had contacted the departments involved. It had checked the resident’s file and could not locate any notes from the HO who carried out the viewing, confirming that the doors were not in situ. The repairs log showed that the landlord attended the property on 17 March and 30 June 2008 to repair and adjust the bathroom door but there was no report or correspondence about missing bedroom doors.
11. The landlord confirmed that the bathroom door was due to be replaced on 25 September 2020 but, when the contractor attended the property, they were unable to gain access, and so the works were rescheduled for 19 October 2020. The landlord confirmed that the bedroom doors would not be replaced, as stated in its policy, and escalation rights were given for the resident to contact it by post, email, or phone if he had further evidence to support the complaint.
12. The resident responded on 9 October 2020 and asked to escalate the complaint as some issues had not been addressed. He said he had no evidence but felt the burden of proof was on the landlord as it possesses the evidence. He was dissatisfied that a member of staff had told him to log his complaint by phone and that he was advised by the landlord on 1 October 2020 that his Stage 2 complaint had been logged but was today told he had to write in, adding further delays. The Stage 2 complaint was acknowledged on 20 October 2020 when the resident was advised the matter had been referred to a senior manager whose contact details were given, and a response would be issued within ten working days.
13. In the landlord’s Stage 2 response of 28 October 2020, it detailed the complaint as being about the resident wanting a solid door on the bathroom and doors fitted to both bedrooms, as these were not in place when he moved in and he was told that they would be installed at a later date. It then confirmed its position as follows:
    1. If the bedroom doors had been missing since 2007, it was hard to understand why the resident took 13 years to register the complaint. There was no evidence that the doors were missing at the start of tenancy but if the resident could provide some proof of this, the landlord would look again.
    2. In respect of the solid door on the bathroom, it noted that as part of a complaint relating to the bathroom in April 2014, works were raised which included replacing the bathroom door. In 2019 the Senior Contracts Manager agreed to replace the bathroom door again but when the was job raised it was to overhaul the door, not replace it. The job to replace the door had been raised again and was awaiting completion.
    3. The resident required a solid door similar to a fire door and had emailed it to ask for this and had been told why this could not be done. It had standard doors for all properties and would not use a solid door on a bathroom.
    4. As previously advised, internal doors fall under the responsibility of the tenant as per its ‘Homes Repairs Policy’, and it would not be fitting bedroom doors. An extract from the policy was included in the letter which lists ‘internal door locks, furniture, frames, architraves, and skirting boards’ as being the responsibility of the tenant to repair. 
    5. It apologised that the member of staff had given the resident the wrong information as a written request was required to escalate a complaint. The complaint was not upheld, and ‘designated person’ and Ombudsman contact details were given. 
14. On 9 December 2020, the landlord recorded that the bathroom door was renewed, and the kitchen door was overhauled.
15. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 4 January 2020, stating that he lived at the property with his daughter and suffered from severe depression, agoraphobia and COPD and is on medication. He and his daughter need privacy as she is now a teenager. He said that the landlord had questioned the delay in him raising the issues but did not listen when he explained the reasons for this (as detailed above in addition to his elderly mother moving in, her subsequent death, and the decline in his mental health).

Assessment and findings

Bathroom door

16. The tenancy agreement, signed by the resident on 9 November 2007, states that the landlord must repair the structure of the property, including walls and stairs. This obligation does not expressly include internal doors. The Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 conveys similar obligations but does not include the repair of internal doors, unless affected by the exterior of the building not being kept in good repair. 
17. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy refers to the resident being responsible for ‘internal door locks, furniture, frames.’ and the landlord has quoted this as the reason internal doors are not its responsibility. The landlord has explained in its complaint response that the bathroom door was replaced because the resident had already been advised it would be by a member of staff. The landlord has no obligation to repair or replace the bathroom door under the tenancy agreement or the Landlord and Tenancy Act, and its own policy is ambiguous but does not state that the tenant or landlord is responsible for the doors.
18. The landlord’s current ‘Lettings Standard’ checklist says that it is a requirement that ‘internal doors all open freely’. Although no such document has been provided in respect of the property at the start of the tenancy in 2007, the resident has not suggested that there was a problem with the bathroom door prior to the flood in 2014.
19. The landlord has responded to the resident’s requests to repair and replace the bathroom door on at least two occasions. There is no evidence to suggest it has acted unreasonably in stating that the bathroom door would be replaced like for like and that it is not obliged to fit a door of a different type. The Ombudsman understands the need for social landlords to make the most effective use of its limited resources and this will often involve carrying out a repair, rather than a replacement, wherever possible.
20. Whilst the resident’s distress at being trapped in the bathroom is appreciated, this is not sufficient to require the landlord to replace the door with one of the resident’s choosing. Further, the landlord does not say that the resident could not upgrade the door himself, so he may wish to consider this option (subject to obtaining the relevant approvals from the landlord).

Bedroom doors

21. The tenancy agreement is silent on the matter of internal doors and there is no checklist or record from the start of the tenancy which confirms whether there were doors on the two bedrooms at that time. Similarly, the Landlord & Tenant Act does not include doors and skirting boards and the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy does not refer to replacing doors.
22. There is photographic evidence that other doors in the property were damaged, but the resident has offered no explanation as to how this occurred. A member of the landlord’s staff has reported discussing the missing doors with the resident and noted that the resident had removed the doors. Whilst there is no other documentary evidence to confirm that this happened, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider the context of the complaint to assess what was plausible/probable. Given the extent of the visible damage to the other doors, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to conclude that the missing doors had been damaged by the resident/his family and removed, as was relayed by the member of staff.
23. In the absence of evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to definitively determine that this occurred. However, coupled with the 13–year delay in the resident raising the issue, no mention being made of it throughout the tenancy when the bathroom door was being address, and the absence of an express obligation on the landlord to replace the doors, there is insufficient evidence to warrant action by the landlord now.
24. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred (in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme). As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. Whilst the landlord exercised its discretion to consider this historic matter, the nature and timeframes of the complaint make it difficult to establish that the landlord has failed to take appropriate action in response to the matters raised.
25. This Service sympathises with the resident’s need for privacy but, in common with the position in relation to the bathroom door, he is free to resolve the situation himself by installing internal doors as required (subject to obtaining the relevant approvals from the landlord).

Determination (decision)

26. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
    1. handling of damage to the bathroom door;
    2. decision not to install/replace bedroom doors in the property.

Reasons

27. The bathroom door has been replaced and there is no obligation on the landlord to change the type of door used. No evidence has been provided that the bedroom doors were removed by the previous tenant and there is no obligation on the landlord to replace doors to the bedrooms of the property. Together with the fact that the resident has not raised the missing doors as an issue for 13 years and there being visible damage to other doors in the property, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that it would not replace them as requested.