Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Citizen Housing (202013049)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013049

Citizen Housing

20 September 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 response to:
  • The resident’s concerns about the location of the tumble dryer outlet following refurbishment works in 2013.
  • The resident’s request to relocate the tumble dryer outlet.

Jurisdiction

  1. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the issue of location of the tumble dryer outlet following refurbishment works in 2013 is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
  4. 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. 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.
  5. This investigation therefore covers only the issues relating to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to relocate the tumble dryer outlet. 

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has held an assured tenancy with the landlord for a three-bedroom house since 1997. She has a physical disability recorded as a vulnerability by the landlord.

The tenancy agreement

  1. The tenancy agreement terms and conditions document sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the resident and the landlord.  Section b.1 of the Assured Tenancy agreement concerns repairs the landlord is responsible for and b.6 those that the resident is responsible for. Neither section mentions tumble dryers or vents specifically.   
  2. There are no implied terms from Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which sets out landlord’s repair obligations, about the installation of appliances

The repairs policy

  1. The landlord’s online ‘customer services – repairs’ guidance does not specifically mention tumble dryers or kitchen appliances as being the responsibility of either landlord or resident. It lists washing machines as being the resident’s responsibility, including installation.

Summary of events

  1. A member of landlord staff visited the property in relation to a flooring repair and reported back to the Supervisor (maintenance) on 23 December 2020, closing the floor job as complete. The member of staff noted that the resident would be sending pictures to a supervisor to ‘approve the repairs or not’. Photographs attached to this email included a tumble dryer and a detached vent hose.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 25 January 2021 which the landlord logged as an ‘informal quick resolution’.
  3. The landlord responded on 27 January 2021 that:
    1. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s refusal to relocate the access hole it had previously installed for her tumble dryer when it fitted a new kitchen in 2013.
    2. The resident wanted the landlord to relocate this or pay for her to have this done.
    3. The resident had raised this in February 2017 and was advised then that the landlord would not consider doing this for her as the installation of her own tumble dryer including the ventilation was her own responsibility.
    4. Although the landlord had installed the vent hole as part of the regeneration project in 2013, it had no ongoing maintenance responsibility for it.
    5. The resident had also raised the issue in February 2020 and November 2020, when the same response was given.
    6. The resident was given contact details for independent advice, including CAB.
  4. The resident contacted this Service on 1 February 2021. She explained that the vent was placed too high when the kitchen was redesigned in 2013. It was fitted with an upturned flexi pipe to meet the vent. She said landlord staff came out in December 2020 and agreed with her that it was in the wrong position. The resident understood that dryers were the resident’s responsibility but felt that the circumstances were different as this vent outlet was installed by the landlord. She wanted the vent to be moved lower down the wall and for the landlord to agree it was installed too high for any tumble dryer. This Service asked the landlord to investigate and respond to the resident.
  5. The landlord responded to the complaint on 25 March 2021. It said that:
    1. The resident felt the tumble dryer vent was not reinstalled in the correct place.
    2. The resident had raised this before and was dissatisfied with the decisions received.
    3. The resident believed that the landlord should move it to a more suitable position as they moved the original position in 2013 and she had been unaware of the inconvenience until she had to change her tumble dryer recently.
    4. The landlord said it was not responsible for the installation of kitchen appliances, and a link to its website was given.
    5. The landlord invited the resident to respond if the review had overlooked any facts relating to the complaint and repeated that independent advice was available.
  6. The landlord responded to the complaint at Stage 2 of its complaint procedure on 19 April 2021. It said that it understood that the resident maintained that the workmanship of the original dryer ventilation in 2013 was poor. The landlord did not consider that the resident had provided any evidence for it to review its decision. The original tumble dryer outlet had serviced the resident for the last 8 years and therefore the landlord could not agree that it was responsible for its relocation.
  7. The resident replied to the landlord on 20 April 2021 and said that it did not understand the situation and it would be easier to have an inspector assess the matter. The location of the outlet was stopping the resident from installing her new dryer and the landlord had allowed workmen to install the outlet incorrectly, and this had caused the flexi pipe to split, and she had to use her previous dryer that way as it was not corrected.
  8. The landlord replied that as the vent hole had been in situ for a number of years and had been appropriate for her previous dryer, the landlord was not responsible for moving it because she had purchased a new dryer. The landlord said that the new vent was something that she would need to organise herself. The landlord reiterated that the previous day’s communication was its final response.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident has advised that landlord staff had been to the property in December 2020 and agreed with her that the location of the outlet was wrong. There is nothing in the landlord’s repair log to confirm that the landlord considered or inspected the matter in December 2020. There is an email which discussed a flooring issue on 23 December 2020, which detailed that the resident would be sending pictures to a supervisor about another matter, but this is not described further.
  2. It may be that the matter of the outlet was discussed at this time, but there is no documentary evidence to suggest that any conclusions were reached during the visit. Given the absence of any other contemporaneous or corroborating evidence, it cannot be concluded that the landlord agreed at this time that the location of the outlet was wrong – or that it committed to move the outlet.
  3. The frustration the resident has expressed is appreciated. However, there is nothing in the tenancy agreement or the landlord’s repairs guidance to suggest that the landlord is responsible for moving the vent to accommodate the resident’s new tumble dryer. Nor is there evidence that the landlord gave the resident assurances that it would undertake this work upon the purchase of a new tumble dryer. The landlord’s view that it is not responsible for the relocation of the vent, and that it will not undertake this work, is therefore reasonable.

 

Determination (decision)

  1.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to this complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord is under no obligation to relocate the resident’s tumble dryer vent outlet, and its decision not to relocate the vent was reasonable given the circumstances of the case.