Cornwall Housing Limited (202001647)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001647

Cornwall Housing Limited

9 March 2021 (as amended following review 7 July 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 is about:
1. the landlord’s handling of a repair to the resident’s ceiling.
2. the landlord’s administration of the resident’s rent account.
3. the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of the property being unsuitable for her.
4. the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and commenced her tenancy with it at the property on 5 October 2015. She is represented in the complaint by a family member; both parties will be referred to in this report as ‘the resident’.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident specifies that the resident “must pay rent on time”.
The landlord’s “conditions of a secure tenancy” confirms that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure and exterior of the property including ceilings and heating equipment. This also states that the resident is required to pay rent as specified in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s “our promise on repairs” leaflet confirms that it is to complete non-emergency repairs to internal plastering and internal decoration due to repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy confirms that if compensation is awarded to a resident who owes a debt to it, this compensation will be used to reduce the debt. This policy provides for payment of £250 compensation where it holds partial responsibility for a failure leading to a major impact for the resident or where it holds full responsibility for a failure leading to a medium impact.
The landlord’s tenants handbook confirms that residents are required to pay rent and it will take action to recover rent arrears. This specifies that it will firstly write to the resident to advise how much is outstanding, then call or visit to discuss the arrears, write again to request payment, and then it will issue a notice of seeking possession or notice of possession proceedings.
The landlord’s customer feedback and complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure with complaints at stage two to be assessed by its tenant appeal panel. This policy does not specify any difference in procedure between complaints brought by the resident directly or by a representative of the resident.

Summary of events

The resident experienced a roof leak from the chimney of the property on 21 December 2018 which damaged the ceiling of the living room. The landlord raised a repair on 18 July 2019 to remove, replace and decorate the ceiling in the living room. This was put on hold until the chimney was removed on 8 January 2020.
A works order was raised to remove and reinstate the resident’s ceiling on 16 and 17 January 2020. The notes from the operative’s visit on 16 January 2020 record that the ceiling was opened up but no further works could be completed as the room had not been cleared of the resident’s possessions. The operative advised that the works would need to be rebooked for future date. The resident states that within an hour of the operative’s visit they had cleared their possessions and telephoned the landlord to inform it that it could proceed with the works.
On 20 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to notify her of arrears on her account.
A further appointment to complete the works to the ceiling was attended on 5 February 2020 but was not completed. The landlord’s notes from its operative record that despite asking the resident on 13 January 2020 to clear the room before the works, her possessions and furniture remained in place, preventing the operative from proceeding with the works.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 February 2020 to advise that further rent arrears were accruing. She called it on 14 February 2020 to inform it that she had not been present in the property for two weeks due to the ceiling works and that her partner was now in the process of making a claim for benefits. The resident stated that she had been advised by the landlord previously that the ceiling works did not require removal of furniture but on their attendance a section of ceiling was removed and they were informed that the room required clearance before any further work could be completed. She relayed that she had cleared the room within an hour that day and informed the landlord about this but no further updates had been received
The landlord subsequently re-raised works to remove and replace the living room ceiling on 16 February 2020 as she had informed it on 10 February 2020 that the room had been cleared.
The landlord’s contact logs noted on 17 February 2020 that on attendance that day, the household member present in the property had become abusive during the visit and the ceiling works were aborted.
The landlord made a further appointment for the ceiling works for 27 and 28 February 2020, at which time the removal and replacement works were completed. The redecoration works were subsequently completed on 10 March 2020.
On 11 March 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to issue a notice of seeking possession of the property. She responded to it on 13 March 2020 to express dissatisfaction with being required to pay rent for a property that had been “uninhabitable” for six weeks, and she had been housed in temporary accommodation for ten days.
The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 19 March 2020 in which she relayed that, when the landlord attended the property on 16 January 2020, it identified an asbestos risk with the ceiling and advised her that the room would need to be cleared to carry out work to the ceiling. She said that it had previously told her that the room would not need to be cleared for these works. The resident advised that her and her family went to stay with a family member as they did not wish to stay in a “damp, cold flat” and the family had suffered a bereavement. She highlighted that, during this time, the family member incurred costs in supporting them.
The resident stated that she attempted to obtain updates on the work from the landlord on 9, 10 and 21 February 2020 when it advised her that asbestos contractors were needed to complete the work and she informed the landlord that her living situation was difficult. On 24 February 2020 she was informed that work would be commencing in three days and she enquired if temporary accommodation would be provided. The resident noted that the ceiling was removed and replaced on 27 and 28 February 2020. She was moved to temporary accommodation on 29 February 2020 and the ceiling in the property was painted on 3 March 2020.
The resident was unhappy that she then received a call from the accommodation provider on the morning of 4 March 2020 giving her little notice to leave the temporary accommodation by noon that day. She was also unhappy that on 12 March 2020 she received a notice of seeking possession for rent arrears.
The resident contended that the property was unfit for purpose because the property had only one exit in the event of a fire; she questioned whether a fire-risk assessment had been undertaken. She also questioned whether an assessment of the energy efficiency of the property had been carried out as she felt that the existing heating system was uneconomical and inadequate for heating the property. The resident added that the heating system had never been serviced in the four–and–half years she had been living there.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 2 April 2020. It highlighted that it had informed the resident on 13 January 2020 that her living room needed to be cleared to enable the ceiling works to proceed; but on its subsequent attendance at the property, the room had not been cleared and the person present refused to clear the room. The landlord confirmed that the works were completed after a second visit.
The landlord advised that it was “not usual” for residents to be decanted when works could be completed with the resident in residence the property. It explained that, taking into account her circumstances at the time, it agreed to provide temporary accommodation “to try to help alleviate [her] situation” and this had been intended to last a week. The landlord stated that, on 6 March 2020, it had then extended this stay until 14 March 2020 as it was yet to confirm a date for the painting of the ceiling. It confirmed that the usual departure time from the temporary accommodation was noon.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident had since made a payment arrangement with it, pending a decision about rent-free weeks and compensation, and it would continue to support her to prevent any arrears cases progressing to further action.
The landlord asserted that the property complied with all building regulations in place at the time and it would not retrospectively fit any additional fire doors. It highlighted that she would have viewed the property for suitability as part of her sign-up process.
The landlord attached the energy performance certificate (‘EPC’) for the property and explained that no annual safety checks were required of the electric storage heaters. It advised that the heaters were inspected each time the property was vacated and then every five years afterwards; its records indicated this would next occur around October 2020. The landlord noted that it had not received any reports of faults or repairs for the heating system but would carry out an inspection once the corona virus restrictions had lifted and carry out any remedial work as needed. If the resident wished to seek another property, it advised of how to bid on new properties or seek a mutual exchange.
The landlord confirmed to the resident on 6 April 2020 that, although the notice of seeking possession would remain in place, this did not necessarily mean that further enforcement action would be taken as she had entered into an agreement with it.
The resident wrote to the landlord to escalate her complaint on 28 April 2020. She disputed that she had been informed on 13 January 2020 to clear the room prior to the ceiling work and contended that it was “understandable” that the family present had been “abrupt” when asked to clear the room as the family was suffering a bereavement.
The resident asked who made the decision on whether a family could remain in residence at a property and who was responsible for overseeing repair work. She insisted that, despite being advised that she and her family could remain in temporary accommodation for another week, the day after the ceiling was painted on 3 March 2020, she received a call to vacate the accommodation that day.
The resident contended that the landlord had not taken their financial situation into account and had not provided sufficient support. She advised that she had no income during this time and had been reliant on a family member to support her, and she had been unaware that their situation had progressed to the stage where a notice of seeking possession was warranted. The resident asked who was to provide a decision on rent-free weeks and compensation.
The resident questioned the landlord’s assertion that the property was in compliance with building regulations at the time and whether this applied to when the building was converted into two separate residences. In response to its statement that it would not retrospectively fit fire doors, she asked if this meant that the resident was expected to check that building and fire regulations had been complied with. The resident expressed concern that there was no annual electrical safety check of the storage heating and wanted to know their age. She maintained that remedial action for the heating system was needed to make the property fit for habitation. The resident requested that she take over the entire building, alongside the landlord’s installation of a new heating system, to make the property suitable for her.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 30 April 2020, advising that it would be reviewing the complaint at stage two of its procedure. It advised her on 11 May 2020 that the complaint would be considered by its tenant appeal panel.
The landlord issued a complaint review response to the resident on 19 May 2020 in which it apologised for not being clearer in its stage one complaint response about which aspects of the complaint it upheld. It confirmed that it did not uphold her complaints about the lack of notice to leave the temporary accommodation, it issuing a notice of seeking possession, and the condition of the property. The landlord confirmed that it did partially uphold her complaint about the delays to the roofing, chimney and ceiling repairs. It offered her £150 compensation for this, which it stated was in accordance with similar compensation offered “following a roofing review carried out in October 2019”.
After intervention from this Service, the landlord informed us on 22 June 2020 that it had followed its complaint procedure appropriately to this point as the complaint had been brought by the resident’s representative. It advised that it could escalate the complaint further to its tenant panel if the complaint was brought by the resident herself. The resident herself confirmed to the landlord on 27 July 2020 that she wished the complaint to be escalated to the final stage. [
The landlord issued a final–stage complaint response, after consideration by its tenant appeal panel, to the resident on 10 August 2020. It found that its offer of compensation for “the inconvenience of living with the damp over many months” should be increased to £250. The landlord found, after checking the dates during which the resident stayed in temporary accommodation, that the booking was extended until 14 March 2020 with her leaving on 11 March 2020. It did not uphold this aspect of the complaint as no evidence was found of her being asked to leave by noon on 4 March 2020.
The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint about its handling of her rent arrears as it noted that the notice of seeking possession was a standard response to arrears. It highlighted that it had demonstrated that it had provided support to her to prevent eviction. The landlord asserted that the resident was expected to pay rent during the time they were not at the property as it had incurred costs in providing alternative accommodation.
The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint about the condition of the property as it complied with building regulations at the time of the tenancy and she would have viewed the property to assess its suitability for herself. It noted that the EPC was provided to her.
The landlord noted that the tenant appeal panel made recommendations. These were:
1. Improved communication, such as advising residents in writing of any preparations required of them before works were to commence.
2. It should review its policy regarding decanting residents during asbestos removal works and consider the individual needs of households.
3. To review and improve the information provided to residents regarding repairs, such as timescales.
4. To ensure that residents were adequately informed about the complaint process. This was to be communicated to residents through a diagram to be published in its newsletter.
The landlord confirmed that the award of £250 compensation would be credited to the resident’s rent account and this response concluded its complaints process.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a repair to the resident’s ceiling

It is not disputed that the ceiling works were to begin upon the completion of the chimney and roof repair which was completed on 8 January 2020. The landlord attempted to carry out the ceiling work on 16 January 2020 and 5 February 2020 which was within the 20 working-day timeframe specified in its “our promise on repairs” leaflet above at point 5.
After the resident informed the landlord on 10 February 2020 that the room was cleared for works to begin, it attended again on 17 February 2020, again within the 20 working-days of her contact.
It is evident that the landlord completed the ceiling works on 10 March 2020. This was again within 20 working-days of its previous attempt on 17 February 2020.
It is noted that the landlord arranged temporary accommodation for the resident at its expense, despite there being no evidence that the property was not inhabitable during the ceiling works. This was a reasonable response, acting in excess of its obligations to her and demonstrated that it took her personal circumstances into account at this time.
It is disputed when the resident was requested to leave the temporary accommodation but there is no evidence to support hers or the landlord’s account of this. Nevertheless, as the stay in temporary accommodation was provided outside of the landlord’s obligations, it would have been its prerogative as to decide how long it could provide this for.
The landlord offered £250 in its final-stage complaint response for the resident’s inconvenience of living with the damp. It is noted that there was a delay between when the ceiling works were first raised on 18 July 2019 and when the landlord next addressed the issue on 13 January 2020. While it is unclear why there was a delay in removing the chimney, which in turn led to a delay in commencing the ceiling works, the offer of compensation appears to be a suitable amount which recognises full responsibility for a failure which led to a medium impact for the resident, in line with its compensation policy, above at point 6.
It should be clarified that the purpose of compensation is not to punish or make an example of the landlord. Compensation is awarded to ‘put right’ any identified failures by the landlord and to proportionally recognise the impact of these failures on the resident.
In this instance, the offer of £250 compensation was broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been a “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs”. Therefore, £250 offered by the landlord was reasonable, as it was in accordance with both its compensation policy, above at point 6, and our own remedies guidance, and represents reasonable redress to the resident.

The landlord’s administration of the resident’s rent account

It is noted that the resident reported in her stage one complaint on 19 May 2020 that she vacated the property voluntarily due to the ceiling works and stayed in temporary accommodation provided by the landlord at her request. Neither of these factors preclude a resident from being required to pay rent and there is no evidence that it informed her that she was not liable for rent during this period.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident, above at point 2, and its tenants handbook, above at point 7, confirms that the resident was required to pay rent. The tenancy agreement is the legal contract between the landlord and the resident, and by entering into the agreement she agreed to be bound by its terms. It was therefore reasonable for it to request payment of the rent while she lived elsewhere.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 January, 10 February and it spoke to her on 14 February 2020 concerning the rent arrears, before issuing a notice of seeking possession on 11 March 2020. This was in accordance with its tenants handbook at point 6 which states that it will write to the resident twice and discuss the arrears with her before issuing a notice of seeking possession.
The landlord confirmed to the resident on 6 April 2020 that it would not necessarily be taking enforcement action as she had agreed a payment arrangement with it. This was a reasonable response from it which indicated that it was prepared to support her to address the rent arrears. Therefore, the landlord acted reasonably and in accordance with its tenant handbook in the administration of the resident’s rent account and there is no evidence of a failure on its part.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of the property being unsuitable for her

The landlord’s “conditions of a secure tenancy”, above at point 4, confirms its maintenance responsibility, whereby it is required to repair and maintain specific elements of the property. It should be noted that repair and maintenance means remedying disrepair; this does not include installation of new systems or elements which did not originally exist. Therefore, the installation of a new central heating system, as requested by the resident in her complaint escalation request on 28 April 2020, would constitute an improvement to the property which the landlord has no obligation to provide. Furthermore if a property is to be considered unsuitable, any such claim must be supported by appropriate expert advice (for example an Occupational Therapist’s report).
There was no evidence of the resident reporting any faults with the heating system so the landlord’s offer of carrying out an inspection of the system in its stage one complaint response on 2 April 2020 was a reasonable response as this addressed her dissatisfaction with the performance of the heating.
The landlord’s response, in its final stage complaint response on 10 August 2020, was reasonable; therefore, provided the property complied with the building regulations applicable at the time of construction, there was no obligation for it to carry out any improvements. It was also reasonable for it to highlight that the resident had the opportunity to decide for herself, prior to taking on the tenancy, whether the property was suitable. In summary, there is no evidence of a failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of the property being unsuitable.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord advised this Service on 22 June 2020 that it had followed its complaints procedure properly for a complaint that had been brought by the resident’s representative. However, the landlord’s customer feedback and complaints policy, above at point 8, does not provide for a difference in procedure between complaints brought directly by a resident and those brought by a representative.
The landlord’s complaint review response on 19 May 2020 did not specify at which stage of the complaints procedure it was responding at. There is no evidence that the complaint was considered by a tenant appeal panel, as specified by the procedure stated in its customer feedback and complaints policy at point 8, despite the resident’s clear request to escalate the complaint on 28 April 2020 and its email to her on 11 May 2020 advising her that the complaint would be dealt with by its tenant appeal panel. Neither is there evidence that the landlord advised her that the complaint would not be considered at the final stage of its internal complaint procedure.
Therefore, there has been a failure on the landlord’s part to adhere to its complaints procedure. This led to the resident not receiving a final response to her complaint until 10 August 2020, three months after her request to escalate the complaint, which in turn led to a further delay for her to bring her complaint to this Service.
The landlord’s complaint responses did not provide the resident with information about the presence of asbestos within the property or its management, despite the resident indicating that the family moved out of the property in part due to concern for their health. It is also noted that the landlord did not answer questions posed by the resident in her complaint escalation on 28 April 2020 about the checking of compliance with building and fire regulations. This represents a failure in complaint handling by the landlord as it would be expected to provide a response to these concerns in the consideration of the resident’s complaint.
For the failures identified, compensation of £50 should be paid to the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been a failure which has had an effect on the complaint but was of short duration and may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint concerning its handling of a repair to her ceiling satisfactorily
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its administration of the resident’s rent account.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of the property being unsuitable for her.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord recognised that there had been a delay in commencing works to the resident’s ceiling and offered a reasonable and proportionate amount of compensation. Once works commenced it attempted to carry these out in accordance with its published timeframes.
The landlord acted reasonably and in accordance with its tenants handbook in making contact with the resident about her rent arrears and supporting her to address these by entering into a payment agreement.
The landlord reasonably informed the resident that the suitability of the property was her initial decision and that it would carry out an inspection of the heating system to address her concerns over this.
The landlord did not follow the procedure provided in its customer feedback and complaints policy in the course of the complaint and failed to address some questions raised by the resident.

Orders

The landlord is to pay £50 compensation to the resident, in addition to the £250 it already offered her in its final stage complaint response, within 28 days.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the £250 it offered the resident in its final stage complaint response, in addition to the £50 above.
The landlord should provide information to the resident on its policy for maintaining electrical heating systems and ensuring compliance with fire regulations.