Citizen Housing (202005427)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005427

Citizen Housing

16 June 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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to the floorboards in his property prior to July 2020.
   2. The effect that the condition of the floorboards had on the resident’s health.
   3. The resident’s concerns regarding the energy performance certificate for the property.
   4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests, from July 2020 onwards, for repairs to the floorboards in his property.

Jurisdiction

2. 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.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to the floorboards in his property prior to July 2020.

3. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
4. The resident has complained about delays in the landlord undertaking repairs to the floorboards in his property since 2018. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord attempted to inspect the floorboards on several occasions between September 2018 and June 2019 but was unable to access either the property or floorboards to undertake an inspection. There is no evidence of the resident raising a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the works until August 2020.
5. Because of that, in line with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, this investigation focusses on the events in the months leading up to the resident’s formal complaint in August 2020.

The effect that the condition of the floorboards had on the resident’s health.

6. Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which 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.

6. The resident has explained that the effects from landlord’s handling of repairs to the floorboards has impacted his health. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Because of that, this investigation will not make a determination about the resident’s health.

The resident’s concerns regarding the energy performance certificate for the property

7. After the landlord sent its final response to the resident’s complaint regarding the floorboards of the property, the resident has reported to this landlord his concerns about the property’s energy performance certificate. In accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which have not exhausted a member landlord’s complaints procedure. As there is no evidence of the resident having raised a formal complaint regarding the energy performance certificate, this is not something that this Service will be able to investigate at this stage. This is because the landlord needs to be given an opportunity to respond to the resident’s concerns.

Background and summary of events

8. On 7 July 2020, the landlord raised a repair for loose floorboards in the property’s living room. The landlord’s operative attended on 9 July 2020 but, according to the landlord’s later complaint response of 23 September 2020, could not complete a full inspection because the resident’s carpets and furniture were still in place. The repair records from the operative’s visit confirm this, but noted that: the floorboards in the bedroom and living room were moving when walked on; the boards seemed too thin and were bowing when walked on between joists; and the floor needed to be completely renewed. The operative noted that he advised the resident that he was responsible for removing furniture and carpets, and that he might need to be decanted from his home while work was carried out.
9. According to the landlord’s complaint response, on 9 July 2020 the operative referred the repair to a supervisor, and, on 22 July 2020, the supervisor and a technical support surveyor attended to inspect the floorboards. The carpets and furniture in the property had not been moved, so the inspection was limited. However, the supervisor and surveyor both concluded that the floorboards were not “thin”; they were standard floorboards used in this kind of property. There was no indication that any of the boards or joists were rotten, or unsafe. Any movement in the floorboards throughout the property was minimal; they did not feel unsafe nor insecure when walked on. The supervisor and surveyor did find some loose floorboards in the living room and agreed to have these re-secured. As the resident was concerned about the floorboards in the hallway containing asbestos, the supervisor agreed to have an asbestos test completed before any work was done.
10. On 22 July 2020, the landlord raised an asbestos test for a sample of the insulation under the hallway floorboards. The landlord attended to do this on 27 July 2020.
11. The landlord raised a repair to secure the loose floorboards in the living room on 5 August 2020. In a call on 5 August 2020 the resident advised the landlord that he would let the carpenter do this, but he was not happy because he was previously told that he would need to be decanted for all the floorboards to be worked on. The resident said he had been complaining about the matter since 2018, but nobody had followed up on it, and he was receiving conflicting information.
12. An operative attended on 7 August 2020 to secure the loose floorboards in the living room, but noted that furniture and carpets were in the way. He moved some furniture, which the resident could not do, and carried out repairs to the accessible part of the floorboards. The operative noted that the resident said he was told previously that joists would need to be replaced, but the operative felt that a more extensive inspection would be required to see if this was needed,  an engineer would need help to remove all furniture, and the resident would possibly need to move temporary accommodation.
13. On 12 August 2020 the landlord informed the resident via telephone that it would ask for another surveyor to attend to provide another opinion on the floors.
14. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 August 2020 and reiterated his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his reports.
15. The landlord spoke with the resident on at least two occasions via telephone between 20 August 2020 and 2 September 2020. In an escalated call back, the landlord advised the resident that it would ask another surveyor to attend to inspect the floors again and he would contact the resident by 4 September 2020.
16. The surveyor and resident attempted to contact each other by telephone between 2 and 16 September 2020 but were unsuccessful. The surveyor noted in the landlord’s records on 16 September 2020 that he had sent the resident a text message, but did not detail its content.
17. According to the landlord’s complaint response, on 15 September 2020 the resident called and asked to submit a complaint about the floorboard works. The landlord treated it as an informal complaint, and sent it to the surveyor, who attempted to contact the resident. This Service contacted the landlord on 16 September 2020 and asked it to formally respond to the resident’s complaint. At this point, the landlord raised a formal complaint.
18. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 23 September 2020. It said it had discussed the complaint with its surveyor and had concluded that a second surveyor’s opinion, as requested by the resident, was not necessary. It explained this was because both a surveyor and supervisor had already inspected as far as they could, and had agreed to do the work that they both felt appropriate. The landlord said that the floorboards and joists in the property did not need to be changed, and so a temporary move was not necessary. It confirmed that it had completed work to the floorboards in the living room, and agreed to complete any further work necessary once the room had been cleared.
19. The landlord acknowledged that on two occasions in the previous two months the resident had expressed his dissatisfaction, and the landlord had treated his contacts as queries, and not formal complaints. It apologised for that. It gave a timeline of events, in which it explained that on 9 July and 7 August 2020 the resident told operatives that he believed the floorboards and joists needed to be replaced, and the operatives explained that the furniture and carpets needed to be moved, and the resident moved into temporary accommodation for this work. The landlord acknowledged that it could have managed the resident’s expectations of this repair better, and hoped it had assured the resident that the floorboards were not a risk to him.
20. Finally, the landlord said that it had received an email from the resident on 18 September 2020, requesting compensation for the delay in this work, and for the costs of replacing the carpets throughout the property. The landlord clarified that the operative who attended on 7 August 2020 should not have moved the resident’s furniture, and that all residents are responsible for purchasing their own home contents insurance, and for removing or moving furniture and flooring to make a workspace accessible. It declined the resident’s request.
21. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 30 September 2020. He said that he had lifted the carpets up four or five months prior for the work to be completed but this was still not done.
22. In the landlord’s final response of 6 October 2020 it upheld its previous decision and advised the resident that he could bring his complaint to this Service, if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to the floorboards in his property.

23. In accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is obligated to repair and maintain the structure of the property, including the floorboards. It was therefore necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of faults with his floorboards and to take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified.
24. It is reasonable, and often necessary, for a landlord to carry out an inspection of any repairs to understand exactly what repairs are required. Based on the information provided, it was evident that the landlord attended to inspect the floorboards within a reasonable timescale. While the landlord was not able to complete a full inspection of the floorboards (because the resident’s furniture and carpet were present), its operative attended and said that he believed that the whole flooring needed replacing. The landlord’s surveyor and then supervisor attended, and concluded that that the floorboards were safe, and that only minor works were required to secure some of them. The landlord attended to secure the floorboards that it was able to access (with the resident’s furniture and carpet still in place), shortly after. The resident made clear to the landlord that he disagreed with the surveyor and supervisor’s findings.
25. A landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinions of its staff and contractors. The repair record for 9 July 2020 is emphatically the landlord’s operative’s view that the floorboards were “thin”, “bowing”, and needed to be “stripped back and renewed”. In its complaint response the landlord contradicts that repair record, saying it was the resident who told the operative the floorboards and joists needed to be renewed. This suggests that the landlord had not carefully checked the facts of the case prior to responding. The Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code sets out good practice for landlords dealing with complaints. It explains that a complaint investigation should be conducted in an impartial manner, seeking sufficient reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made. To ensure fairness, processes and procedures shall require the complaints officer to consider all information and evidence carefully.
26. If it was the case that the supervisor and surveyor believed that the original operative’s findings were incorrect, good practice would have been for the landlord to identify that, and explain the discrepancy to the resident. The landlord did not do so. It acknowledged that it had not managed the resident’s expectations well, but it did not explain in what specific way. Because of that, the landlord’s response to the complaint was incomplete.
27. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is the resident’s responsibility to clear repair work areas of personal items or valuables prior to a scheduled appointment. Moreover, the resident’s tenancy agreement advises that the landlord will not insure a resident’s home contents. It is, therefore, the resident’s responsibility to insure his personal belongings, including decorations, and the resident is responsible for the repair and maintenance of all fixtures and fittings that he installs in the property.
28. As such, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for his floor coverings i.e., that he was responsible for insuring and removing this for works, was in line with its repairs policy and the tenancy agreement. It is common practice for a resident to need to remove their floor coverings and furniture prior to repair or maintenance work. In some cases, the landlord may do this for the resident and recharge them, or ask the resident to sign an agreement that the landlord is not liable for damage to the resident’s belongings. However, a landlord would generally not be expected to pay for the replacement of a resident’s carpet. Therefore, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request was reasonable.
29. In the resident’s escalation request he said he explained that he had removed the carpet months beforehand for the landlord to complete the work. However, the evidence shows that the contractors who attended between July and August 2020 found the carpets still in place.
30. There was a delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s complaint of 5 August 2020. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response that there were times where it incorrectly dealt with the resident’s correspondence as a query, rather than a complaint. The landlord acknowledged its failing and apologised for the delay it caused.  The landlord’s acknowledgement and apology were a proportionate, and therefore reasonable remedy to this issue. However, they did not resolve the fact that the complaint responses contradicted the repair records, and lacked an explanation of the change of views about the repairs needed.

Determination (decision)

31. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint about its handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to the floorboards in his property prior to July 2020.

Reasons

32. The landlord has handled the resident’s requests for repairs to his floorboards in a reasonable timeframe and carried out inspections as far as possible to address the issues reported by the resident. However, some of the content in the landlord’s response contradicts the evidence, and it has not addressed the difference in its operatives’ opinions on the works required in the complaint response. This was unreasonable. There were short delays in the landlord raising a formal complaint; however, this was appropriately addressed in the landlord’s complaints procedure.

Order

33. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation for the frustration and inconvenience caused to him.
34. This payment must be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made. Failing to do so may result in a Complaint Handling Failure Order against the landlord.