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

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (202010560)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010560

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

4 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

  1. The condition of the former property at the commencement of the tenancy and the landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs.
  2. The impact on the resident and her family’s health and wellbeing.

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 (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states ‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion 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’, the complaint about the impact on the resident and her family’s health is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. The resident complains that the condition of the property has had a psychological and physiological impact on her and her family’s health and as such compensation is warranted. These issues are considered as personal injury and any such claims need to be determined by establishing negligence or liability and the Ombudsman does not have the jurisdiction to do so. As such the matter is better suited to be addressed through a personal injury claim via the courts or as an insurance claim. These avenues will be able to make a binding decision on the matter.
  4. The Ombudsman therefore suggests that should the resident wish to pursue the matter, she seeks independent advice.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The former property is a 4-bedroom semi-detached house which was offered as emergency accommodation in December 2019 and then as an introductory tenancy commencing September 2020.
  2. The landlord notes that one of the resident’s children is severely autistic.
  3. The tenancy agreement notes the landlord will carry out repairs for which it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time after it has been notified of the need for the repair.
  4. The Repairs and Maintenance policy notes responsive repairs are day to day repairs that are carried out at the request of the tenant to repair existing features or items of the property that are detrimental to the life, health and/or wellbeing of the tenant or the property. Emergency repairs will be responded to within 2-24 hours. Urgent repairs will be completed within 5 working days and non-urgent repairs within 20 working days; both exclude the day the repair is reported, weekends and bank holidays. Scheduled repairs include the renewal of individual elements of the property that have reached the end of their useful life and are carried out at set times of the year, in set areas of the borough. They are completed on average in 3 months, but no more than 5 months, depending on when they are reported. Scheduled repairs include plastering.
  5. The policy also notes the landlord has a responsibility for vulnerable children and adults and where appropriate will take into account the individual needs of its vulnerable customers when prioritising their repairs.

Summary of events

  1. On 5 November 2019, the void inspection was raised, and works were carried out throughout the property, including clearing of the garden, prior to being signed off for letting on 21 November.
  2. The landlord’s repair records show that works were raised between May 2020 and January 2021, and these were completed in line with the relevant repair timeframes. It is noted that due to Covid-19 restrictions some scheduled repairs were noted to be completed later than 5 months.
  3. On 26 October 2020, the resident formally complained that she had reported repairs to the property, but these had not been carried out. This included a toilet which did not flush, damp, creaking floorboards, and an inaccessible garden.
  4. On 11 December, the landlord provided its stage 1 response and apologised for the delay in doing so. It noted the property had been made permanent following her child’s occupational therapist stating it was medically suitable. It noted that in August a meeting had been held prior to making the property her permanent residence and an offer of £500 for carpeting was made, but she believed this was insufficient. It noted it had confirmed the properties suitability and the issues she raised as unsuitable were mainly cosmetic and about decoration and it had advised her that if any repairs were required, they were to be reported and would be completed by its repairs teams.
  5. It noted that the property had been inspected 3 times in the past 6 months with 16 jobs raised and the floorboards made a cracking sound, as the property had no floor covering, but the slightly broken floorboard was planned to be renewed along with other joinery work which was due to be completed in December 2020, however due to Covid-19 and its scheduled repairs backlog this had been put back until March 2021. It noted floor coverings were the resident’s responsibility and the £500 offered towards carpeting the property was still available. It explained that the walls were non-load bearing and made from plasterboard which was standard throughout most of its properties. It advised the toilet was flushing upon inspection, however the handle was loose, the previous leak had been fixed and works were raised, for completion in March 2021, to:
    1. remove the damp plaster and treat the area.
    2. renew the whole cistern.
    3. fit an air vent in the rear bedroom on the chimney breast.
    4. fit slip resistant floor tiles to the bathroom.
    5. box in the fuse board.
    6. alter the downstairs WC door so it opens outwards.
    7. the garden to break up and renew 2 square metres of concrete in the corner near the fence.
  6. It noted the repairs could be completed whilst the resident remained in the property, and she could escalate the complaint if she was dissatisfied.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint, and this was heard by a panel on 18 January 2021. The final response noted the panel were satisfied with the amount of work that had been agreed to be completed, agreeing the majority of the work was cosmetic and could be completed in March 2021 due to Covid-19 regulations. It noted as a gesture of goodwill it would complete plastering and damp work to the chimney breast, fit the air vent and renew the toilet cistern before March 2021.

Assessment and findings

  1. The void report provides an extensive list of repairs which were completed at the property prior to it being let and whilst the property was not decorated to a high standard it is noted that internal decorations are the responsibility of the resident. The Ombudsman can see that once the resident was in the property works started being reported 5 months after she moved in. As such the Ombudsman is unable to state that the property was not let to a reasonable standard, as there is no evidence of issues being reported immediately after taking up residency.
  2. The Ombudsman has considered the resident’s complaint of outstanding repairs against the repair record and can see that in relation to the faulty toilet flush, this was attended to in June 2020 as an urgent repair and in line with the stipulated timescales. Additionally, the landlord reasonably explained that given there were no floor coverings, the floorboards were likely to make creaking sounds. Its offer of £500 to assist in carpeting the property was over and above its obligations and reasonable. The report of the loose floorboard was made in September 2020 and the landlord arranged an inspection where works were scheduled for December 2020, however given the national lockdown in November 2020 and again in January 2021, the landlord was unable to complete works as planned.
  3. Following consideration of the complaint, whilst the toilet repair had been completed, the landlord’s offer to carry out further works to resolve any further issues with the toilet was reasonable, given that the surveyor had noted the toilet was in working condition. While the resident states the garden was inaccessible, the Ombudsman is aware that only a small area of the garden (2sqm) in the corner near the fence, required replacement concrete. Again, this was work which was responded to promptly and scheduled.
  4. It is clear that when reports were made the landlord carried out relevant works or inspections in order to schedule works. Again, it must be noted that the Covid-19 restrictions in place delayed non urgent repairs and scheduled works, and the landlord cannot be held responsible for this. It was reasonable that the landlord considered bringing forward some repairs, prior to March 2021, in an effort to alleviate some of the concerns the resident had, however here was no maladministration in its actions.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the condition of the former property at the commencement of the tenancy and the landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 39 (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the impact on the resident and her family’s health is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

  1. The landlord responded to reports of repair in line with its policy, considered additional works, offered financial assistance and was not responsible for delays caused by Covid-19 restrictions.
  2. Any impact of the repairs on the resident’s family’s health amount to personal injury claims and are better suited for the courts or as an insurance claim.