Believe Housing Limited (202012380)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012380

Believe Housing Limited

27 May 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

The complaint concerns:
1. the condition of the property at the start of the resident’s tenancy.
2. The effect that this matter has had on the resident’s existing medical conditions.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The effect that this matter has had on the resident’s existing medical conditions

Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.
In his complaint to the landlord made on 19 October 2020, and when bringing his case to this Service on 21 January 2021, the resident described the adverse effect the condition of the property had had on his existing medical conditions.
The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his medical conditions, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The resident took on the tenancy of the property on 12 October 2020.
The landlord’s lettable standard document describes the condition that its properties are expected to meet before it is considered ready for new tenants. This, in part, states the landlord will ensure that:
1. The kitchen will be clean and functioning, and it is the tenant’s responsibility to arrange for the cooker to be connected.
2. The property’s bath and/or shower, hand basins and toilet will be clean and work properly.
3. All glazing is intact and windows open and close easily.
4. All internal and external doors are fit for purpose and open and close easily.
5. All floors and fixed floor coverings are secure and free from slip or trip hazards.
6. Full gas and electrical safety tests are carried out and the tenant is provided with the relevant safety certificates.
The letting standard notes that some work may be carried out after the tenant moves in and the landlord will make the tenant fully aware of what is outstanding and when it will be rectified.
The letting standard also addresses items left by a previous tenant. This states as follows:

“These items will not form part of the premises let to you under your tenancy. For the avoidance of doubt, we give no warranty as to the fitness or condition of these items. If however you don’t want to keep any remaining items, we will organise a removal after you have signed your tenancy agreement.”

The void inspection of the property was undertaken on 28 May 2020. The void inspection sheet recommended the following scope of works:
1. Capital work to replace the kitchen units, the bathroom and rewire the property.
2. Replace all internal doors, letterbox and window sill at landing.
3. Remove and reseal all internal silicon around all windows.
4. Replace WC in downstairs toilet.
5. Remove mirror from hall and make good.
6. Replace bracket at kitchen sink gully waste pipe and clear gullies.
7. Prepare and paint external doors.
8. Remove loose ceiling tape from upstairs rooms, re-tape and make good.
9. Clear mould/stain block from affected area in kitchen.
10. Plaster large cracks, a cupboard and a wall in the bedrooms. Board/skim a bedroom ceiling. Take back to brick, fix mesh then bond/skim to make good the affected areas in walls and window reveals.
The void inspection sheet states that the keys to the property were handed over to the contractor on 29 May 2020 and that they were returned on 17 July 2020. The contractor also provided the landlord with an invoice for the completed work. The invoice notes that work to fit new skirting in the kitchen and to supply and fit a new sill to the kitchen window was undertaken directly by the landlord. All work recommended in the void inspection sheet is marked as completed on the invoice.
Section 8 of the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy concerns repair categories and response times. These are defined as:
1. Emergency repairs (made safe within 24 hours). A defect that puts the health, safety or security of properties, customers, or anyone else at immediate risk.
2. Appointable repairs (carried out within 20 working days). A repair that can prevent immediate damage to the property and/or overcome inconvenience to customers.
3. Planned repairs (carried out within 40 working days). Repairs that require specialist materials and/or equipment and further time to complete.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is raised, the landlord aims to send an acknowledgement within two working days and a stage one response within ten working days. If a complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation to the next stage. The landlord will acknowledge the request within two working days and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

Summary of events

On 16 October 2020 the landlord informed its contractor that the resident had called and reported the following snagging issues in relation to the void repairs:
1. The toilet and an upstairs radiator were leaking.
2. Skirting boards were rotten.
3. Plaster is crumbling off the walls.
The landlord also informed the contactor that the resident had enquired about arranging a structural report as he could not move in and decorate due to the size of the cracks in the plaster.
The contractor visited the property on 16 October 2020 and then wrote to the landlord on 19 October 2020 and informed it that:
1. The toilet pipework was checked, and no leak was found.
2. No leak in the bedroom radiator was found and the resident may have thought decolouring of the pipework was a leak. The contractor also noted that it had not worked on the heating system and therefore this would not be considered a snagging issue.
3. Replacement of skirting boards was not part of the scope of works ordered during the void period.
4. The resident had stripped wallpaper in all rooms, which had revealed cracks. This would not have been previously visible to the contractor when they completed the scope of works, nor the landlord when it undertook the void inspection.
On 19 October 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a complaint. He described the elements of his complaint as:
1. The property was in a very poor condition. There were big cracks in the walls and patches of damp plasterboard due to previous leaks. The skirting boards were old and damaged, and rubbish had been left in the loft space.
2. The walls should have been stripped and properly inspected during the void period.
3. There was no fuse in the boiler and confusion over how and who would resolve the issue.
4. He had to arrange his own plastering as he was informed by the contractor that they would not be able to carry out the repairs in a timely manner. This work had cost him in excess of £2,000.
5. He had to pay rent on two properties while he brought the landlord’s property up to an acceptable standard.
As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested to live rent-free in the property for the first six months of the tenancy, to make up for the expenses he had accrued.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 October 2020 and sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 4 November 2020. It informed the resident that:
1. When visiting the property on 16 October 2020, work was agreed to repair the cracks in the bedroom wall corners, to reskim one bedroom and skim two walls in another bedroom.
2. The resident was also advised during the visit that the dampness at the base of the toilet was due to condensation and that there was no evidence found of damp plasterboard due to leaks.
3. It contacted the resident on 19 October 2020 to arrange appointments for 21 and 22 October 2020. However, it was informed by the resident that he had arranged a private contractor to carry out the work as he was unhappy with the timescale from the landlord to complete the work.
4. During the 16 October 2020 visit, the resident raised additional issues relating to the fire/fireplace, rubbish in the loft space, and radiators not fitted correctly. The resident refused a further visit and therefore the landlord had yet to fully investigate these matters.
5. It contacted the resident again on 26 October 2020 to arrange a visit. This was declined by the resident, who supplied photographs of the skirting boards.
6. It is normally a tenant’s responsibility to replace skirting boards. However, as they were subsequently replaced and removed before they could be inspected, the landlord was unable to prove or disprove that the original skirting boards would have met its lettable standard.
7. Gas is capped when the property becomes void for safety reasons, and tenants are advised to arrange a turn on and test when they are ready to do so.
The landlord then explained that it was satisfied that it had attempted to resolve the issues raised at the 16 October 2020 inspection; however, additional issues raised by the resident could not be fully investigated as the resident declined a follow-up inspection.
The landlord noted that while the resident was entitled to arrange his own contractor at his own cost, it would not consider compensating him for this work as it was fully committed to arranging the work and resolving the complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 November 2020 and requested an escalation of the complaint. He described the grounds for escalation as:
1. He was promised that the work would be completed on 19 October 2020, but was then told it would not be undertaken for eight days. It was not possible for him to decorate until the cracks were repaired; therefore, the property was not fit for purpose and he should not be expected to pay rent.
2. The plumber who activated the boiler repaired two leaks from the radiators which were the cause of damp issues. The radiator pipework was sitting too low and should run on top of the skirting boards.
3. The wall behind the fireplace was damaged, the skirting boards were rotten, and the door frames were damaged.
4. It was not reasonable to be expected to wait in excess of ten days for a repair while being charged rent.
5. He declined the landlord’s offer to inspect the property as he had already arranged for the work to be completed by his own contractor and had provided photographs which supported his position.
On 11 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord again and informed it that the bath was leaking and provided photographs to show this. The landlord replied on 12 November 2020 and explained how to report the repair issue. The landlord also confirmed that his complaint escalation request had been received and was being considered.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 November 2020 to confirm that it had escalated his complaint to stage two of its complaints process. The landlord called the resident on 23 November 2020 to discuss the outstanding issues of the complaint and then sent the stage two complaint response to him on 26 November 2020. The landlord informed him that:
1. Although it appreciated the frustration of the resident not being able to start decorating the property until the work had been completed, it had not identified any repairs that fell outside of its repair timescales.
2. The additional plastering work only became evident when the resident stripped the wallpaper prior to decoration. This would not have been evident at the void sign-off.
3. The potential dampness in the downstairs toilet was identified as condensation and the resident was given advice on how to manage condensation issues.
4. The fireplace was classed as a gifted item on the void report. It could not find any issue with the fireplace nor the wall behind the fireplace being raised by the resident in its repair records. It advised him to contact it if he required further assistance with this issue.
5. The skirting boards had passed the void lettable standard when the property was inspected. When the resident reported the skirting boards as rotten, he had already arranged to have them replaced. The landlord was therefore unable to confirm the resident’s position. The landlord also reminded the resident that, as per the terms of the tenancy, he required written permission before making structural changes to the property.
6. The door frames were not identified as requiring work during the void period. This issue was not previously raised by the resident prior to his complaint escalation request and the landlord would be happy to arrange a visit to inspect the door frames.
7. The repair logs state that three heating-related repairs had been marked as completed and that there were now no outstanding issues with the radiators.
8. In relation to the resident’s dissatisfaction with having to wait ten days for repairs to be completed, the landlord noted that while it understood that the resident wished to decorate the property in order to make it his home, a ten-day wait for the work to be completed would have met its service standards for these types of repairs.
9. During the 23 November 2020 call it had offered the resident two weeks free rent as a goodwill gesture. However, this was declined.

Assessment and findings

Section 2 of the tenancy agreement relates to the landlord’s obligations and, in part, states that it is responsible for repairs to internal walls, doors, door frames, skirting boards, plasterwork, basins, sinks, baths, toilets, water pipes and water heaters.
Section 3 of the tenancy agreement relates to the resident’s responsibilities. This, in part, states that the resident is responsible for payment of the rent and other charges weekly in advance, the carrying out of minor repairs and internal decoration.
Section 3 paragraph 28 is concerned with alternations and states that the resident must not carry out alterations or additions either inside or outside the property without written permission from the landlord.
The resident signed the tenancy agreement on 12 October 2020 and confirmed that “I have been given an opportunity to read the terms and conditions of this tenancy agreement. I understand that I should not sign it unless I am prepared to agree to keep to the terms and conditions”.
The visit on 16 October 2020 by the contactor highlighted further plastering work not identified during the void period after the wallpaper was stripped from the walls. Further issues were raised by the resident during the visit and, as part of the complaint process, relating to the skirting boards, the downstairs toilet, and door frames.
The landlord raised work orders and contacted the resident to arrange a further visit to inspect the additional issues he had raised. During the complaint process the landlord explained that the skirting boards and door frames had been deemed to be in a lettable standard during the void inspection.
It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the recommendations of its appropriately qualified contractors, particularly where any items are considered serviceable and in a lettable standard. If an incoming tenant then disputes the condition of any item, the landlord has an obligation to investigate; but this does not mean the item should have been repaired during the void period if it has already been flagged to the landlord as not needing repair or replacement
The landlord arranged for the plastering work to be carried out on 21 October 2020. This was three working days from when the issue was reported on 16 October 2020 and within the 20-working day window to complete appointable repairs as per its repairs and maintenance policy.
This was declined by the resident on the grounds that it was unreasonable to wait that long for repairs to be completed on a property that was “not fit for purpose”. The resident also informed the landlord that it had cost in excess of £2,000 for him to arrange the repair work himself and requested that the first six months of rent be waived as reimbursement.
There were clearly outstanding repairs when the resident took on the tenancy, but as explained above it is considered acceptable for landlords to let properties with some repairs outstanding provided the repairs would not make the property unsafe to live in. Although it would have been inconvenient for the resident to have to wait for replastering to be done before he could redecorate the property, this would not in itself mean that the property was unsafe to live in.
If a tenant decides to proceed on the basis of a property being uninhabitable (whether that be to incur their own repair costs or costs arranging alternative accommodation) this must be based on written confirmation that the landlord agrees to these costs in advance, otherwise they cannot rely on the landlord refunding any of these costs.
Given that the resident did not seek written permission prior to starting the work, that the landlord had arranged for its own contractor to undertake the work within its published timescales for repairs, and also attempted to arrange inspections of the further issues highlighted by the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord not to consider waiving rent payments for six months. However, it did offer to waive two weeks of rent as a goodwill gesture.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the condition of the property when it was let to the resident.

Reasons

The landlord followed its void standard when preparing the property to be let. The void standard mentions that properties can be let while there are some repairs outstanding.
The landlord arranged to have the plastering work completed within its 20-working day timescale for routine repairs. It also contacted the resident at arrange inspections of the additional repair issues he had raised since he moved in.
No evidence has been provided which showed that the resident sought written permission to undertake the repair work himself, as per the terms of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord was therefore under no obligation to reimburse the resident for this work.