Charnwood Borough Council (202014424)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014424

Charnwood Borough Council

17 January 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:
1. How the landlord handled the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the property when it was first let.
2. How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.
3. How the landlord handled the resident’s request for a rent adjustment.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”
When the resident contacted this Service after completing the landlord’s complaints procedure, she advised she was unhappy that the following repairs were still outstanding: – water leaking into kitchen below from first floor bathroom; water/sewage pipe smells; outdoor shed; back garden needs levelling and brick slab; back side-fence; ivy plant in front and external painting. At the time the resident advised the service of these issues were being investigated by the landlord under a new complaint (ref. 3053932). Before a complaint can be accepted for investigation by this Service, a complainant needs to refer the complaint to this Service after completing the landlord’s complaints procedure, making clear why they remain dissatisfied. The resident has not contacted this Service about complaint 3053932 after completing the complaints procedure. In fact, there is no evidence that the complaint completed both stages of the complaints procedure. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs is outside the jurisdiction of this Service to consider.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s Fit–to–Let standard states that it will check a number of points before a tenant moves into the property to ensure the property is suitable. This includes:
1. “Floor, walls and ceilings – all plasterwork will be dry, firm and free from large cracks. All joinery including skirting boards, molding, bannisters, floorboards and stairs will be sound.”
2. “Exterior – existing fences, gates, walls, brickwork, paths and drives will be safe. Gardens and hedges that are severely overgrown will be cut back and cleared.”
3. “Decorating – depending on the property offered and the condition of the decoration, there are various options:
  1. We may offer you a decoration pack to buy decorating materials. This is to help you pay for decorating and not meant to cover all your costs.”
The landlord’s internal correspondence summarises its procedure for dealing with void properties:
1. Once the property keys have been handed in to the Allocations Team, they then get passed over to the Voids Team.
2. Voids Team carry out an initial inspection.
3. Voids Team carry out repairs and maintenance.
4. Voids Team carry out a post inspection report and rectify any issues picked up.
5. Keys are passed over to allocations.
The landlord’s Tenancy Handbook confirms the parties’ repair obligations: With regards to the landlord:
1. “We [the landlord] repair and maintain the structure and outside parts of the property you live in. Inside your home, we are responsible for water and gas pipes, wiring, heating systems, drainage, power and light fittings, and any items originally provided by us, but not items that are your responsibility.”
2. “We are responsible for any outbuildings or sheds originally provided by us, and the main paths that lead to your front and back doors and to your clothes line.”
Urgent Repairs should be carried out within five calendar days, where there is no risk to the residents, but inconvenience is caused. Routine repairs should be carried out within “twenty-eight calendar days, where the fault does not cause problems straight away or make it dangerous for people in the property or outside, but still needs to be done quite soon.”
The resident is responsible for:
1. “Filling minor cracks or holes in walls and ceilings”.
2. Keeping the “garden tidy. This includes the lawn, hedges, trees, … or any shared area that is let as part of the tenancy.”

Summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy commenced on 19 October 2020. The property is a house. The resident did not move into her property until 22 December 2020.
On 3 March 2020, the landlord had carried out the post-inspection of the property after void works, taking photographs. It noted that the “wall and ceiling finishes (plaster) [were] sound with no loose of flaking material”, and that “all the Artex ceilings [were] in sound condition”.
On 13 October 2020, the resident attended to sign her tenancy. On 14 October 2020 the landlord advised the resident to move into her property during the first week of her tenancy otherwise Housing Benefit would not meet her rent and she would be liable herself for the rent.
On 16 October 2020 the resident requested that the landlord carry out several repairs, stating the outside toilet was broken, a kitchen cabinet was broken, the front and rear gardens were overgrown, metal sticks were sticking out of the front wall and slabs at the front were not safe. The landlord inspected on 21 October 2020 and raised various works including:
1. “Replace handrail brackets.
2. Replace edging to cill in the kitchen.
3. Ease bathroom door.
4. Replace a floorboard upstairs.
5. Put security chain on front door and check lock.
6. Make good pantry and round metre box near front door.
7. Remove vent to front wall, brick up and replace broken slabs to the right had side of front door.”
After the resident reported cracks in the wall after stripping wallpaper, on 21 October 2020, the landlord’s plasterer inspected the property and, according to the landlord’s correspondence, noted that works were required to two walls and one ceiling, all other surfaces only having small cracks.
On 22 October 2020, the resident advised the landlord that she did not intend to move into the property until works were completed and asked for the rent to be waived. She raised further repair requests and on 27 October 2020 the landlord moved a kitchen base unit to allow the resident to install a wider cooker. On 5 November 2020 the landlord passed on a job to cut down a tree to a specialist contractor. On 17 November 2020, the landlord removed an airbrick and replaced a broken slab. The works ordered on 21 October 2020 were completed between 11 and 20 November 2020.
The plastering works were scheduled to be completed between 18 and 21 November 2020. On 21 November 2020 the resident emailed the landlord asking it to plaster all the interiors in the house. The landlord agreed to the skimming of five rooms even though, according to its internal correspondence, it did not think the works were necessary in order to resolve the matter to the resident’s satisfaction. The plastering works were completed on 4 December 2020. The landlord also completed the repair to one floorboard which it noted was just a bit “creaky”.
On 23 November 2020 the landlord advised the resident that it would continue to charge rent weekly as the house was in a lettable standard and met the criteria required, and that she should move in and clear the arrears that were accruing. It suggested that she submit a formal complaint if she was dissatisfied.
On 26 November 2020, the landlord inspected the resident’s property.
On 30 November 2020 the resident sent a complaint requesting a rent rebate stating that her family could not move into the house because of serious health and safety issues. She noted that she had received advice from the NHS on 21 March 2020 and 4 November 2020 that they should not move into the property until “major repair works and other major repair works” are completed. She also noted that she had a chronic respiratory condition.
On 7 December 2021, the landlord sent the Stage 1 response.
1. It noted that the resident found cracks in the wall after stripping the wallpaper to redecorate, and that after instead of just filling in the cracks, it had arranged for the walls to be skimmed. It also dealt with a small floor issue.
2. Whilst the resident had advised of health issues, she had requested and agreed the works. Furthermore, the works undertaken by the team would not prevent a tenant from moving in. Therefore, it would not be offering a rent rebate due to the property being at a lettable standard at sign up.
On 9 December 2020 the landlord inspected the resident’s property again and found no further issues. It agreed to replace a wire fence at the bottom of the garden with a new fence, the works being completed in January 2021.
On 22 December 2020, the landlord asked the resident to clear her rent arrears. On the same day, the resident moved into the property.
On 31 December 2020 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint, stating that she had provided her reasons for not moving into her property.
An internal email dated 10 February 2021 confirms that the landlord gave consideration to photos sent by the resident. It noted that “some relatively minor cracks and defects of the kind that might reasonably be expected when stripping and undertaking decorative works. Clearly, we have deemed some work necessary and have picked this up after tenancy start, however use of the property as a whole would not appear compromised taking these photos together with those taken at relet”.
On 17 February 2021, the landlord sent the Stage 2 response to the complaint.
1. It noted that works were raised after the inspection of 21 October 2020 and a further inspection identified only hairline cracks in the plaster. It found that none of the issues would have caused the property to be uninhabitable, external issues could have been dealt with while the residents were in the property and none of the photos showed that the property was unsafe. It was satisfied that the property met the Fit–to–Let standard. The landlord also noted that whilst it was the resident’s responsibility to repair any minor plaster cracks and internal decorations”, it had attended to minor defects.
2. It was the resident’s choice not to move into a property while having their property decorated.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the property when it was first let

The landlord’s procedure for dealing with void properties confirm that it should carry out repairs and maintenance then carry out a post-inspection. The landlord has provided evidence that it carried out the post-inspection of void works on 3 March 2021, therefore taking appropriate steps to ensure that the property met the Fit-to-Let standard.
After accepting the tenancy, the resident raised several repair requests, both internal and external to the property. Once on notice, the landlord was required to carry out the works it was responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy and in law. The landlord took appropriate steps to identify what works it was required to out by carrying out inspections of the resident’s property on 16 and 21 October 2020, and it was reasonable that it relied on the professional assessments of its members of staff who had responsibility for carrying out inspections and its appointed contractors.
The landlord subsequently carried out the works it identified to the resident’s property. The works were carried out within the 28-day calendar timeframe for routine repairs, or shortly after, and therefore, there were no significant delays in the completion of works. It carried out further inspections on 26 November 2020 and 9 December 2020 thereby taking appropriate steps to ensure that the condition of the property was satisfactory and in line with its repair obligation.
The landlord also agreed to carry out works that were over and above its obligation, and which therefore was to the benefit of the resident. This included carrying out plastering works to areas of the resident’s property that it considered only had small cracks, which under the Repairs policy was the resident’s responsibility to fill. It also did not have a repair obligation to alter the kitchen to allow a larger cooker. The landlord also arranged for the removal of a tree even though under the tenancy agreement, the resident assumed responsibility for the tree when taking the tenancy.
It is noted, however, that several months, including the summer months, elapsed between the post-inspection of void works and the resident’s signing the tenancy agreement. It is possible that the tree (and other vegetation) could have grown in the interim causing the letting standard that the garden is cut back and cleared not to be met at the time the tenancy commenced. It is not clear that the landlord carried out further works in the garden between the post-inspection of void works and the resident’s signing the tenancy agreement. A recommendation has been made in this regard.

How the landlord handled the resident’s request for a rent adjustment.

The resident has requested that the landlord off write off the rent for the period 19 October 2020 to 22 December 2020 during which no rent was paid and arrears accrued.
The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that her “rent and any other charges are due every Monday in advance”, and that if rent is not paid, the landlord may apply to the court for a Possession Order. Therefore, when signing the tenancy agreement, which is the legal contract between the parties, the resident became obliged to pay the rent charged after the tenancy commenced. This obligation remains regardless of whether the resident chose to move into the property or not. As such, the landlord is not obliged to waive the rent.
Whilst the landlord carried out works after the tenancy started, this does not necessarily mean that the condition of the property is uninhabitable, or a rent rebate should be provided. The landlord had taken steps to ensure that the property had met its lettable standard and inspected the condition of the property. It also considered the condition of the property from photographs provided by the resident. The landlord did not obtain any evidence that the property was uninhabitable either from its own investigations or from third parties, that would warrant a rent reduction. Generally, repairs are carried out around the tenant who has provided access for the repairs, and works required externally do not affect or require the tenant to leave the premises, a house in this instance.
It is also noted that the resident decided unilaterally not to move into the property until 22 December 2020 and not to pay rent. Not only did the tenancy agreement confirm her obligation to pay rent, the landlord advised her that she should move into the property so as to receive Housing Benefit to meet, at least in part, her rent. The landlord therefore gave appropriate advice to the resident on her liability to meet her rent, thereby managing her expectations.
In investigating complaints, the Ombudsman also takes into account what it “fair in all the circumstances”. In this case, it was also reasonable that the landlord declined to award the resident a rent rebate insofar as, as noted above, it carried out works over and above its obligation which were at the resident’s request and to her benefit.
In summary, the resident is obliged to pay her rent from the tenancy start date and the landlord is not obliged to waive her rent. It was reasonable that the landlord did not agree to waive or adjust her rent as it did not obtain any evidence that the property was uninhabitable, either from its own investigations or from third parties, that would warrant a rent reduction. The landlord also gave appropriate advice to the resident on her liability to meet her rent, thereby managing her expectations. It was also reasonable that the landlord declined to award the resident a rent rebate insofar as it carried out works over and above its obligation which were at the resident’s request and to her benefit.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how the landlord handled the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the property when it was first let.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how the landlord handled the resident’s request for a rent adjustment.

Reasons

How the landlord handled the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the property when it was first let

The landlord carried out a post-inspection of void works therefore taking appropriate steps to ensure that the property met the Fit-to-Let standard. After the resident raised repair request on accepting the property, the landlord took appropriate steps to identify what works it was required to out by carrying out inspections of the resident’s property on 16 and 21 October 2020. It subsequently carried out identified works and carried out further inspections to ensure that the condition of the property was satisfactory and in line with its repair obligation. The landlord also agreed to carry out works that were over and above its obligation, and which therefore was to the benefit of the resident.

How the landlord handled the resident’s request for a rent adjustment.

The resident is obliged to pay her rent from the tenancy start date and the landlord is not obliged to waive her rent. It was reasonable that the landlord did not agree to waive or adjust her rent as it did not obtain any evidence that the property was uninhabitable, either from its own investigations or from third parties, that would warrant a rent reduction. The landlord also gave appropriate advice to the resident on her liability to meet her rent, thereby managing her expectations. It was also reasonable that the landlord declined to award the resident a rent rebate insofar as it carried out works over and above its obligation which were at the resident’s request and to her benefit.

Recommendation

The landlord considers drafting a procedure or providing guidance to staff in respect of ensuring garden areas meet the letting standard at the time a resident’s tenancy commences, in particular where several months have elapsed since void works.