Believe Housing Limited (202128510)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128510

Believe Housing Limited

28 February 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 handling of:

 

a.     modernisation works at the resident’s property.

 

b.     the resident’s request to be decanted from his property, while works were undertaken.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, and the property is a two-bedroom house. The resident has Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).

 

3. The landlord planned to carry out improvements to the resident’s property and the resident agreed that he wanted his property to be modernised. The works included:

 

a.     A full rewire.

 

b.     A new bathroom suite.

 

c.      The installation of extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom.

 

d.     A new skirting board in the kitchen.

 

4. The landlord had scheduled for its contractor to start works on 21 October 2020 and estimated completion by 9 November 2020 (15 working days). However, during this time, the landlord discovered damp, which meant it would need to do further work in the property.

 

5. The resident raised concerns about the impact that the dusty environment would have on his healthduring the works and asked if the landlord would decant him to a bungalow that he knew was available nearby. The landlord said that it would not decant the resident during works as it was not within its corporate policy.

 

6. In May 2021, the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s delay in completing the works, and its refusal to decant him. In its stage one complaint reply, the landlord apologised for its lack of communication and agreed to complete the works. The landlord kept its position on the decant and opposed this part of the complaint. It said it only offers to decant a tenant when the property is uninhabitable, and it did not think this was the case here.

 

7. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s initial complaint response and escalated the complaint to the next stage. He was particularly unhappy with the landlord’s lack of communication during the works and its failure to provide a copy of its Decant policy. The resident said that he had taken a week off work to clean and decorate the property only to be told that the work was not complete as the landlord needed to complete a damp course and replaster the walls.

 

8. In its final complaint response in July 2021, the landlord confirmed with the resident that the works were complete (as confirmed by the resident days prior). It partially upheld the resident’s complaint because it agreed that it could have completed the works sooner. The landlord also acknowledged that it could have communicated better with the resident. However, it maintained that it did not need to decant the resident, because the resident had said that he could use a community building in the daytime whilst works were taking place. The landlord also said that if he was concerned about the impact of the dust, the resident could have refused the modernisation works. The landlord did not offer compensation to the resident for its admitted delay.

 

9. Despite the works being complete, the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response. He did not think the landlord had gone far enough to acknowledge the adverse effect that the delays in completing the works had on his health. The resident was disappointed that the landlord had refused to decant him during the works, especially as they had taken much longer than planned. He referred the complaint to this service, as he was unhappy that instead of the planned three weeks, the works had taken almost nine months. The resident was also annoyed that the landlord had delayed in providing a copy of its Decant policy and alleged that this showed that he should have been offered a decant. The resident has advised this Service that he seeks an apology.

 

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of modernisation works

10. Where internal improvements are concerned, it is not compulsory for a tenant to agree to have improvements carried out to their home. In this case, the resident welcomed the modernisation of his property and agreed he wanted the work to go ahead. The landlord informed the resident that the work would begin on 21 October 2020 and scheduled three weeks to complete the works, the deadline being 9 November 2020.
11. During the modernisation work, concerns were raised about dampness being present on the walls in the kitchen and the lounge. In his letter to the landlord, the resident said that the landlord had taken three damp readings, and none had shown dampness. However, in a damp survey report carried out on 20 November 2020, the landlord found dampness and subsequently agreed to provide a damp course treatment and replaster the walls. In his complaint escalation, the resident was understandably unhappy that the landlord had not found the dampness earlier on.

 

12. To treat the kitchen walls with a damp course, the landlord needed to remove the kitchen units, apply the treatment and replaster the walls. The units would need to be fitted back onto the walls when the plaster had dried out. The landlord would also not be able to fit the new radiator in the kitchen until the plaster had dried. It is unclear exactly when the treatment and plastering work was complete. Correspondence from the resident suggests the landlord had completed this work by December 2020.  Yet, in March 2021 the resident called the landlord to say it had not yet refitted the units back on the walls.

 

13. In the Ombudsman’s view, there was an unreasonable delay in completing the works. The landlord did not refit the kitchen units and radiator back onto the walls until July 2021, and it was the resident’s formal complaint that prompted the landlord to do this. Whilst waiting for the landlord to refit the kitchen units on the walls, the resident had to tolerate having the units stacked up in his living room. The delay in completing the works would have been a significant inconvenience to the resident, not least as he would not have been able to properly store his food.

 

14. The Ombudsman expects that there can be delays when completing works, especially as in this case where the landlord did not discover the dampness until the works began and it needed to rectify this before it could complete the work. However, this service found a distinct lack of communication from the landlord to the resident during the months it took to complete the works. The landlord did not give a clear explanation as to why it had poorly communicated. While in its stage one complaint response, the landlord said it had received mixed guidelines from the government over the Covid 19 pandemic, which resulted in essential repairs only being carried out and a backlog of repairs, there continued to be a failure to manage the resident’s expectations.

 

15. This service appreciates that during the pandemic, government guidance was constantly changing.  However, at minimum, the landlord could have communicated to the resident when it would likely undertake the work and also considered the impact the delay would have had. The absence of a radiator in the winter months would have adversely impacted the resident.

 

16. In its handling of the complaint, the landlord acknowledged it had poorly communicated with the resident during the works, yet it did not offer any redress to acknowledge its failures and the distress caused to the resident. In its first complaint reply, the landlord apologised that the resident had not felt supported.  However, in neither of its complaint responses did the landlord specifically apologise for the poor communication and for the delay.
17. Whilst the resident has not specifically requested compensation, this service notes the resident said he was unhappy about taking a week off work unnecessarily. The resident also said that the delay in completion of the works had caused him to be depressed and he needed counselling. The Housing Ombudsman provides a dispute resolution service. This is an alternative to a legal route and therefore this service cannot make the same findings and orders of compensation in the way that a court may order a payment of damages. In general, this service would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for their time off work, or for any personal injury caused, whilst repairs are carried out. However, where this service finds maladministration, a landlord can be ordered to pay compensation to acknowledge a resident’s distress. The Ombudsman has subsequently done this below, in recognition of the landlord’s oversights in its handling of the works.
18. Since the resident made his complaint, this service notes that the landlord has updated its complaints handling policy and this includes provisions for offering compensation. While the landlord has also contacted this Service identifying for itself that it could have handled the resident’s situation better, the Ombudsman still considers it appropriate to offer a determination on this matter.

Landlord’s handling of the decant request.

19. Prior to the works starting, the resident made the landlord aware that he had COPD. The landlord had offered the resident a place he could go to during the day, particularly for when his electrics would be off, whilst the property was re-wired. The resident had refused this, as he said that he could use a community building during the day.

 

20. However, the resident became aware that a bungalow in his area was unoccupied and so he asked the landlord if he could decant to this whilst the works took place. The resident notes in his complaint escalation that he had offered to pay rent on both properties. Being concerned about the dust that the works would generate, and the effect this could have on his COPD, the resident thought this would be his best option. It is noted that the landlord refused this, saying it was against its policy.

 

21. The Ombudsman has not considered the landlord’s decision to refuse a move to the bungalow to be a service failure. The Ombudsman cannot comment on the availability of this property or the way in which the landlord manages its stock. Contrary to the landlord’s suggestion, however, the Ombudsman has considered its policy and notes the assertion within this that a decant may be considered where there is a health condition that may be impacted by works. While the Ombudsman appreciates that landlords are not obligated to decant residents where a need has not been identified, and that this will be considered on a case by case basis, there is no evidence that the landlord followed its policy here.

 

22. Despite raising with the landlord that the dust could adversely impact the resident’s condition, the landlord declined the resident’s request without appropriate reason. The landlord also failed to share its decant policy with the resident until several months later. This was inappropriate. The resident would have been unable to refer to the landlord’s agreed approach (where a health condition existed) in the absence of this policy.

 

23. While the Ombudsman is unable to comment on whether the landlord’s failure to decant the resident resulted in any deterioration in the resident’s health, in the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord overlooked its duty of care here and failed to act in accordance with its policy. There was a lack of customer focus and additionally a failure to offer a reasonable explanation as to why the resident’s condition / the works being undertaken did not make him eligible for a decant. This was inappropriate.

 

24. If the works had taken the expected three weeks, the landlord may have been more justified in its decision not to decant the resident, particularly as the landlord had mitigated the impact on the resident by offering a place for the resident to go to in the daytime.  However, particularly when it found the property needed a damp course and replaster, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have reconsidered its position. This was a missed opportunity. This Service has subsequently concluded that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter – particularly as the winter months and lack of heating would have contributed to the difficult time the resident was experiencing.

 

25. Finally, while the landlord raised that the resident could have declined the works if this would risk harm to his health, in the Ombudsman’s view, this was not a reasonable response. The resident should not have been penalised (in the form of missing out on having improvement works undertaken to his property), due to his health condition. This also demonstrated a failure to fairly approach this matter.

Determination (decision)

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the modification works.

 

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the decant request.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

28. The landlord is ordered to:

 

 

29. The landlord should ensure that it complies with the above orders and provides this Service with proof of compliance within four weeks of receiving this determination.