Leicester City Council (201909564)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909564

Leicester City Council

25 November 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 resident complains about the landlord’s handling of a number of repairs at the property.

Jurisdiction

In her contact with the Ombudsman, the resident has raised a number of issues that did not form part of her complaint to the landlord. For example, she has detailed the outstanding issues in her property to be blown plastering, a skewed bath panel, and a leak into the living room ceiling. She also mentioned issues with windows, not enough water in a toilet cistern, gas pipes, and tiling.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. As these issues did not form part of the formal complaint and so have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process, they are not considered here.

Background

The landlord’s published repair response times are as follows:
1. Priority 1 Emergency (for example serious water leaks) – Dealt with within 24 hours
2. Priority 2 Routine repairs (for example minor repairs to windows or doors) – Completed within 10 working days
3. Priority 3 Programmed repairs (for example repairs to paths) – Surveyed within 10 working days and completed within 8 weeks to 12 months according to the job.
The landlord’s website states, ‘Adaptations can only be made following an occupational therapy assessment.’
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that a landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house (including drains, gutters and external pipes); keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences, but not other fixtures, fittings and appliances for making use of the supply of water, gas or electricity); and to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states ‘Housing Services will undertake an inspection of the properties…This will be to identify if there have been any tenant adaptations and whether they are in a safe and satisfactory condition…However it is the responsibility of the incoming tenant to ensure they are satisfied with the general condition of the property.’
The landlord’s disturbance allowance for a six-bedroom property (such as the resident’s) is £280.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that where there has been maladministration on its part that may have adversely affected a resident, it may, if it thinks appropriate, make payment to, or provide some other benefit for, that person. The policy states, ‘It is possible for ‘maladministration’ to occur without consequent ‘injustice’ and vice versa and in these circumstances it will not normally be appropriate to consider awarding a payment or other benefit.’ Payments could be made for distress, and time and trouble. The policy specifies that in cases where the complainant has suffered damage to property as a result of alleged negligence of the landlord, the policy should not be applied.

Summary of events

The resident moved to the property by way of mutual exchange in July 2019. Soon after she began to raise various concerns about repairs required, the landlord’s handling of these, and the quality of the works. This continued into 2020. For example, in March 2020 she contacted the landlord with concerns about removal of wallpaper, floorboards in the living room, and a sinking floor in the bathroom (although specified that she was not making a complaint at that time). Around this same time the landlord carried out a full rewire in the property.
On 24 August 2020 the resident emailed the landlord with a formal complaint and a list of outstanding issues. She said that there were unfinished and shoddy repairs throughout, with work completed to a poor standard. She stated ‘I’m having to report repairs over and over they get surveyed multiple time’s before actually anything get done then its not carried out to an acceptable standard. Using sub standard materials too.’ The resident also detailed damage she believed had been caused by the landlord’s contractors.
The landlord attended to inspect on 28 August 2020 in relation to the repair issues raised in the complaint. It found that the toilet cistern was loose, and that the area behind the cistern may need skimming. There were some holes in the bathroom wall where the resident had fitted towel rails and they had come off, and a crack line. The landlord advised which were the correct fixings.
The bath, sink and toilet had all been fitted recently and were in good condition. The bath was the largest size available, and the resident was advised if this was not suitable due to medical needs to contact social services. There were no repair issues within the kitchen. Following this, jobs were raised to re-plaster the wall and refit the cistern, and plaster holes/cracks to the bathroom wall.
An electrical inspection was carried out on 21 September 2020 in relation to the rewiring that had taken place earlier that year.
The landlord provided a complaint response dated 30 September 2020, in which it noted that the resident had submitted earlier concerns that were dealt with directly by the service outside of the formal complaint process. It said that inspections had been carried out by Repairs Team Leaders and a Gas Team Leader to assess the resident’s concerns about repairs undertaken. It went on to address each of the areas of complaint in turn.
In March 2021 the resident made a further complaint to the landlord, stating that a number of the issues raised in the first complaint were outstanding. The landlord’s Repairs Team Leader carried out an inspection on 29 March 2021. The door frames were inspected, and it was found that the bathroom door lock had come off, and would be replaced. A splice repair to this door was also required, and both works were booked for 14 April 2021. The only plastering which required ‘making good’ was a patch repair by a bedroom door which had already been done, along with caulking to the door frames. The resident had stated that the toilet cistern was fine and the plastering behind it had been completed. A shed door had not been replaced.
The landlord provided a final complaint response dated 14 April 2021. As with its September 2020 response, it addressed each complaint in turn. Although overall it found that issues were dealt with appropriately, it identified that there were some failings in its handling of repairs, and it offered £100 in compensation for this.

Assessment and findings

When considering complaints the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
This assessment will consider each of the resident’s complaints in turn:

Door frames

In her August 2020 complaint the resident referenced door frames, though did not provide further detail on her concerns. In its September 2020 response the landlord said that a job had been logged to replace three internal bedroom doors and the front door on 4 March 2020, and these jobs were categorised as non-emergency repairs. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, between 23 March 2020 and 10 August 2020 only emergency repairs were addressed. The landlord noted that it had explained that this work would be delayed in an email to the resident dated 08 April 2020. The three-bedroom doors and frames were replaced on 28 August 2020 and the area was replastered on 3 September 2020.
The landlord’s response to this complaint was not entirely reasonable. The repair record shows that a job was raised to address the doorframes on 4 March 2020 under ‘priority 2’ which meant that it should have been completed on 18 March 2020 prior to the 23 March 2020 ‘emergency only’ restrictions to repairs. The landlord’s response did not recognise this.
Having said this, 18 March 2020 was only two working days before these restrictions, and so the actual delay on the part of the landlord was 48 hours, which does not warrant a finding of maladministration. Ultimately, the delay in this work being completed was due to Covid-19, and therefore not avoidable.
The Ombudsman has also seen a copy of the 8 April 2020 email in which the resident was informed that all non-emergency work was on hold. It was reasonable that the landlord was carrying out emergency works only during the 2020 Covid-19 restrictions. There was no service failure here.
In her March 2021 follow on complaint the resident stated that the door frames had not been replaced properly, and she could not close the toilet door due to this. She stated that a poor-quality lock had been used which sliced her and her children’s knuckles when used.
In its April 2021 complaint response, the landlord noted that at the March 2021 inspection it was found that the bathroom lock had come off and this would be repaired on 14 April 2020. The bathroom door also required a splice, which would take place at the same time.
This was not a wholly reasonable response as while the landlord provided details of what was being done to resolve the issue, it did not address the complaint that the resident had raised about the quality of the lock, and the quality of the works carried out to the doors. There was no explanation given as to why the door required a splice after the initial repair, and no comment on whether this was indicative of the initial works being substandard. The resident did not receive a full response to her concerns.

Front door replacement

In her August 2020 complaint the resident said that she was still waiting to hear about the replacement front door. In its September 2020 response the landlord said that the front door was a bespoke item which required manufacture. Following the resident’s initial contact about the front door it had made arrangements to look into this but due to Covid-19 restrictions there was a delay with the manufacture of the door. It was now expected to be delivered shortly.
The evidence available shows that in February 2020 the resident contacted the landlord and said that despite being repaired on several occasions, the front door was not closing properly. Notes indicate that an inspection was subsequently carried out and the repair records show that a job was raised on 9 March 2020 to manufacture and fit a new front door, under ‘priority 3’. This was a reasonable and timely approach to the resident’s concerns. The landlord acted appropriately and fairly here, investigating the resident’s concerns about the door and undertaking to replace it.
While the delay in the replacement was no doubt frustrating for the resident, it is the case that Covid-19 restrictions caused delays with such works. There is no indication that the issue with the door meant that the property was insecure for this period. It is also noted that the resident did not raise this as part of her follow-on complaint in March 2020, and so it seems the matter was resolved. There was no failing on the part of the landlord here.

Shed door

In her August 2020 complaint, the resident said that she was still waiting to hear about the replacement shed door. In its September 2020 response the landlord said that it had no record of the shed door being ordered, but could see that a repair was reported in July 2019 and apologised that progress had been slow since then. It said that during a 26 August 2020 visit the Team Leader took measurements for a replacement shed door which had now been ordered. As with the front door this was a bespoke item which required manufacture.
While there is a repair report from July 2019, this was to repair a gap under the shed door. Internal landlord correspondence indicates that this work was carried out, and so it is therefore unclear what the landlord referred to when stating that progress had been slow. However, a May 2019 property inspection (presumably carried out in connection with the mutual exchange) found that the shed door was rotten and required replacing. Therefore, this work should have been carried out soon after. This did not happen, and so was a failing.
In her March 2021 follow up complaint the resident pointed out that the shed door had still not been replaced. In its April 2021 response the landlord apologised for the delay and explained that the door hadn’t been ordered because there was no room to store this while Covid-19 restrictions were in place, and the supplier had confirmed there was a further delay because of Covid-19. The landlord had therefore sourced another supplier with a six-week delivery timeframe.
This was an unreasonable response. Firstly, it failed to recognise that the need for a replacement door had been identified in May 2019. Secondly, it contradicts the September 2020 response which stated that the door had already been ordered. There is no indication that the resident was kept updated on the delay, or that the landlord had taken any action to mitigate the issues that it had cited as causing the delay up until that point. The resident reports that the shed door was replaced around July 2021, some two years after the May 2019 inspection deemed this necessary.
These failings would have been frustrating for the resident, who had to take time and trouble in pursuing the matter and experienced the ongoing inconvenience of the outstanding repair.

Banister

In her August 2020 complaint the resident said that the stair banister replacement work had not been completed satisfactorily. In reply the landlord said the Repairs Team Leader had inspected this and although there were no safety issues, it was found that wooden inserts could have been fitted in between the new spindles, and so this was done on 28 August 2020.
The repair records show that on 23 January 2020 a job was raised to repair the banister. It is not clear when this work was completed, but given the landlord’s response it does seem that some further works were required, albeit relatively minor. While all works should have been completed to standard initially, given that the landlord attended to carry out these works very soon after the resident raised her concerns, there was no significant failing here specifically, and the resident did not raise the matter in her March 2021 complaint, and so it would seem that this was resolved.
However, it is understandable that in conjunction with the other repair issues, the resident found it frustrating that additional works were needed after the initial job.

Kitchen/bathroom replacement

In her August 2020 complaint the resident referenced a kitchen and bathroom replacement that she was expecting. In reply the landlord said that a refurbishment was carried out in 2016 and the property was not eligible for a replacement of either room at this time.
It is not clear why the resident was expecting this work to be carried out, and there is no indication that the landlord had informed her that this would be happening. The landlord’s response appropriately explained why it would not be, and the resident did not raise the issue further. There is no evidence of a failing here.

Ill-fitting toilets in both upstairs and downstairs bathrooms.

In its September 2020 letter the landlord said that a Team Leader inspection found that the cistern in the upstairs bathroom was slightly loose, and required re-fixing to the wall, although was safe to use. The plaster behind the cistern also needed making good. These repairs would be carried out the following month.
This presumably relates to the 28 August 2020 inspection as detailed in the background section, above. The landlord acted reasonably here in carrying out this inspection soon after the issue was raised in the formal complaint, to determine what repairs were required. It was found that one cistern was loose, and arrangements were made to repair this once plastering work was carried out, with these jobs detailed in the repairs history. There is no indication in the repairs history that the resident reported this issue prior to her August 2020 complaint.
In her March 2021 complaint, the resident said that works to the downstairs toilet had still not been completed. In reply the landlord noted that the loose cistern was discussed with the resident who confirmed it was ‘all done and no further work was required.’ This is supported by the Repairs Team Leader’s contemporaneous note of the inspection on 29 March 2021 as referenced in the background section, above. Therefore, it would seem that this matter was resolved. There was no failing on the part of the landlord here.

Bathroom required complete plaster and repair of one wall.

In its September 2020 response to this complaint the landlord noted that the Team Leader identified some small holes and fine cracks in the plaster, which were repaired that same month. This response was in keeping with the findings of the 28 August 2020 inspection, and is reflected in the repair record which shows jobs raised for these works in September 2020 under ‘priority 3’, with the work carried out in the appropriate timeframe. There is no indication in the records that the issue was reported prior to the resident’s August 2020 complaint. There was no failing on the part of the landlord here.
In her March 2021 complaint, the resident said that plastering work was undertaken, but the quality was poor. In addition, after replacing one of the bedroom door frames replastering took place but operatives didn’t ‘make good’.
In its April 2021 response the landlord said that it had visited in relation to these matters and it was found that there was a small plaster patch repair in the hall next to a door frame. It said ‘Whilst we cannot determine how this occurred it could be that slamming the door has dislodged it.’ It said that this repair had been completed. It had also been found that two of the door frames which had new architraves fitted had been left with gaps, which had now been caulked. This would be fed back to the relevant manager, as the caulking should have been done at the time that the architraves were fitted.
The landlord said that the ‘making good’ that the resident referred to was in relation to chasings in connection with an electrical upgrade, which it would comment on later (and is addressed in this investigation report below).
The landlord’s response reflected the findings of its 29 March 2021 inspection. It recognised that the caulking should have been carried out without the resident needing to raise it, and had fed this back to the relevant manger, demonstrating that it would ‘learn from outcomes’. While it is the case that the caulking should have been done at the time that the architraves were fitted this was not so serious a failure as to warrant a finding of maladministration. However, as previously noted, it is understandable that in conjunction with the other repair issues, the resident found it frustrating that additional works were needed after the initial job.

Damaged belongings

In her September 2020 complaint the resident said that when a new bath was fitted a year ago the operative took the Victorian shower mixer taps. She also reported that another operative stepped on her garden fork and broke the handle.
In response the landlord said that damages to personal possessions needed to be addressed via its insurance team, and provided the relevant forms. This was in line with its compensation policy and was a reasonable response, especially given the amount of time that had passed since the alleged incidents: In such circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to facilitate a claim on its own insurance policy.
The resident also said that an operative broke the leg on her cooker. The landlord noted that this claim was investigated by its insurance services, and so it was unable to investigate the matter, although the resident may be able to speak with the insurance team to appeal.
This Service has seen evidence of the insurance claim for the cooker in August 2019. Given the matter had already been considered by the insurance team (and presumably declined), there was no further action that the landlord could reasonably be expected to take via the complaint process, especially given the time that had now passed since the alleged incident. The Ombudsman is not in a position to determine issues of causation and liability and cannot, therefore, comment on any rebuttable of negligence or the outcome of an insurance claim.
In her March 2021 complaint, the resident said that she had heard nothing from the insurance team since last year. The landlord advised a letter was issued in December 2020, and the insurance team had been in touch following her complaint and sent another copy of the letter. The landlord said that it was unable to comment on any insurance matters. As above, in light of the insurance claim, the landlord’s approach here was appropriate.

The bath was too small and narrow for resident’s needs

In its September 2020 response the landlord said that a new bath had recently been installed and was the largest size it had available (1700mm). It advised the resident to contact social services for an assessment by an occupational therapist if she felt the bath did not fit her medical needs.
This was a reasonable response. The information published on the landlord’s website states ‘Adaptations can only be made following an Occupational Therapy assessment.’ There is no indication of a failing regarding the type of bath fitted at the property, and this issue was not raised in the March 2021 complaint.

The exterior of the property could do with ‘a lick of paint’

The landlord said that the Team Leader’s inspection noted that paint was only peeling from the soffit and facia boards just below the roof line, and that these would be replaced with UPVC when the roof was due for replacement.
There is no note from the Team Leader’s inspection that mentions the external decorations, and so this response is not supported by the evidence. Having said this, the resident did not raise this matter in her March 2021 further complaint, and there is no indication that she otherwise disputed that paint was only peeling from the soffit and facia boards.
The landlord has been unable to provide the tenancy agreement, and the ‘Repair Handbook’ that is available on the landlord’s website makes no mention of responsibility for external decoration. Therefore, it is not entirely clear whose responsibility external decorations fall under, the landlord’s or the resident’s.
However, the landlord is not obliged under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep decorations of soffit and facia boards in good order. While a landlord may carry out external decoration works in some circumstances, given the landlord’s stance on replacing the soffit and facia boards at some point, its response here was not unreasonable, and there is no indication of maladministration.

Electrical works carried out at the property, including damage caused during works, works still not being signed off, and a delay in receiving a redecoration grant.

In its September 2020 response the landlord noted that it had previously written to the resident about some of these issues in response to concerns she raised in March 2020 and had said in an email dated 8 April 2020 that the disturbance payment would be made to her shortly. The landlord apologised for the delay in this being done, and said this had now been actioned and the amount credited to the resident’s account on or around 21 September 2020. While it understood that the resident was unhappy with the amount, the allowance was not intended to cover the entire cost of redecorating.
In response to the complaint the landlord’s electrical quality control engineer had reviewed the electrical condition report that was undertaken prior to the mutual exchange, which had found the electrical installation to be safe, and had not identified a need for a full rewire. The property had been added to the capital rewire programme following a visit by the resident’s Housing Officer, who had noted that there was only one plug socket per room. The landlord said ‘…and the only way in which we would increase this capacity is for a rewire to be undertaken.’ This was not a safety requirement and would have needed to be considered within the next few years.
Regarding the sign off, the landlord explained that usually a clerk of works would visit to ensure all items had been completed satisfactorily. However, due to Covid-19 physical inspections were not undertaken, and as a temporary measure the clerk of works examined photographs of the completed works and signed off the works as provisionally complete.
On 21 September 2020 the electrical contractor attended to inspect, and whilst they noted a few minor issues, there were no electrical safety concerns highlighted. The contractor agreed to return to remedy the issues that required attention on 28 September 2020 but the resident cancelled the appointment. The landlord invited her to reschedule this. In relation to a claim that the works affected the resident’s television equipment, the landlord said that this was unlikely to have been due to the works, but provided a form to complete should she wish to make a claim for damaged items.
The evidence available supports the landlord’s response to this issue. It shows that, following a visit to the property in February 2020, the resident’s Housing Officer asked the property services team whether there were any plans to rewire the property, as there was only one plug socket in each room. In light of this the property was then added to the Capital Works programme for rewiring. Internal correspondence from the landlord notes that this was acted on as only having a single socket can lead to hazard (with excessive use of adapters and extension leads), and that while the property had an electrical upgrade in July 2011, this was only intended to be a ten-year installation, ‘…in the full expectation that it may need a rewire in 2021’. Further, the Ombudsman has had sight of the electrical inspection report that was undertaken prior to the mutual exchange. This did not identify any safety issues nor recommend a rewire.
There is no evidence of a service failure in the landlord’s decision to carry out a rewire at the property. The £280 disturbance payment made was in line with its policy. While the payment was delayed, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for this.
The electrical works inspection form dated March 2020 notes that the sign off was ‘unseen’ due to Covid-19, which is in keeping with the landlord’s explanation that no physical inspections took place, although there is no evidence that supports its comment about photographs being reviewed.
A copy of the inspection that was carried out on 21 September 2020 following on from the resident’s complaint has also been provided to this Service. This notes that the plaster patching in a large number of areas was ‘not to standard’. It was also noted that works to one socket were outstanding, but this was due to the resident needing to move a bed before they could take place, and that there were issues with floorboards being replaced, but this was because they were ‘loose and uneven on heating pipework runs’ and this was not connected to the electrical works.
It was the plastering and bedroom socket works that were to take place on 28 September 2020. While the plaster patching should have been carried out correctly in the first place (and as with the issues above, the fact that it was not would have added to the resident’s frustrations) the landlord did take action to ‘put things right’ once the issue was reported, and so no failing is found here. These works were cancelled by the resident (the Ombudsman has seen an email from this date confirming this).
Finally, the landlord advised the resident that she could make a claim for damage to her vacuum cleaners, which, as stated above, is a reasonable approach.
However, there is no indication that the landlord took any action in relation to the floorboards that had been found to be loose and uneven. Even though it was not considered that this was due to the electrical works, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to make arrangements to investigate this now it had been made aware of the issue.
In her March 2021 complaint, the resident said that she had been unable to reschedule the agreed work as she did not have contact details, and asked the landlord to reschedule it. She went on to say that the electrical works had left her property ‘devasted’. She said that the contractors had not made good, and didn’t replace floorboards correctly which had destroyed a new carpet on the landing. She said the contractors did not replaster correctly and having to use her own vacuum cleaners every night when they had finished had ‘completely choked up the filters’ with one vacuum cleaner not working effectively anymore.
In its April 2021 response the landlord reiterated that the resident would need to submit a claim for damage to the vacuum cleaners. It also noted that the resident needed to move a bed so that the work to the bedroom socket could be carried out, and that an appointment had been made for 14 April 2021 to carry out work agreed last year: Repairing the chasings and the electrical socket.
This response was reasonable in relation to the works agreed, and again shows the landlord attempting to ‘put things right’ but it again appears to have taken no action in relation to the report of uneven floorboards. While this may not have been the responsibility of the electrical contractor to address, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have taken steps to address this issue.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident is unhappy that the landlord did not ‘make good’ damage to decorations following on from the electrical works. ‘Make good’ obligations apply both to damage that occurs because the landlord fails to comply with a repairing obligation and to damage which occurs as a result of the repairing work. However, a landlord is not obliged to ‘make good’ decorations if the damage comes about due to improvement works, such as the rewiring that took place.

Four radiators not suitable

In its September 2020 response the landlord said that during an inspection by a gas team leader on 28 August 2020 the four radiators were assessed to determine whether they had the correct heat output for the room. It was found that two are of a suitable size and ‘two could do with upgrading’. This would be carried out shortly.
There is no record of the gas team leader’s inspection, but the repair records show that on 29 September 2020 a job was raised to replace these radiators. There is no indication that the resident had reported an issue with the radiators not being suitable previously, and so the landlord acted appropriately in attending to inspect the issue in good time, and carrying out the works identified. This issue was not raised in the resident’s March 2021 complaint and so was presumably rectified.
As well as addressing each of the repair issues in turn, the landlord acknowledged the large number of repairs that the resident had reported since she moved in, but explained that mutual exchange properties are accepted ‘as seen’, and its duty was to ensure they were safe for the tenant. The inspection that took place prior to the exchange was visual only with all the existing tenant’s belongings including carpets in the property.
It went on to say ‘However there were a few items noted for follow up at your first visit, that have not been actioned in a timely manner. I can also see that you have raised a number of issues since moving in, and whilst some in your complaint haven’t been reported to us before, therefore we hadn’t had an opportunity to look into them and resolve, I do accept that several concerns had been raised previously and there has been a delay in teams addressing them.’ The landlord said that in part this could be attributed to the Covid-19 situation, but some issues were reported prior to this and the reasons for the delays had been difficult to ascertain.
The landlord apologised for this and offered £100 in recognition of these failures. It said that it had asked teams to review their systems to determine if these issues were isolated or if any changes could be made to ensure works were completed in a timely manner going forward. The landlord also noted that the quality of some work did not meet the resident’s expectations. Whilst it had deemed most was of an acceptable standard, it did carry out further work in recognition of the problems the resident had experienced.
This conclusion was reasonable in as much as it recognised some failings on its part, and offered compensation for this. Its comments on mutual exchanges were in keeping with its mutual exchange policy, which specified that while it would inspect to check properties were in a safe condition it was the responsibility of the incoming tenant to ensure they are satisfied with the general condition of the property.
However, the landlord’s investigation into the complaint did not recognise all of the failings detailed in this report, and therefore cannot be said to have fully ‘put things right’ for the resident or ‘learned from outcomes.’

Determination (decision)

There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property.

Reasons

The landlord responded to a large number of the repairs and issues raised appropriately and in good time. Overall, its responses to the formal complaints were appropriate and sought to address and resolve the resident’s concerns.
However, the complaint response did not address the quality of the works carried out to the doorframes, or the resident’s concerns about the lock.
The landlord took two years to replace the shed door, and its response to this complaint was contradictory. There is no indication that the resident was kept updated on the delay, or that the landlord had taken any action to mitigate the issues that it had cited as causing the delay.
The landlord took no action in relation to the floorboards that had been found to be loose and uneven.

These failings would have been frustrating for the resident, who had to take time and trouble in pursuing the issues, and allow for multiple attendances from contractors. While the issues with the banisters, plaster patching and caulking were not so serious as to warrant a finding of service failure in and of themselves, in conjunction with the other issues detailed here, these would have added to the resident’s frustrations. The £100 offered by the landlord was insufficient to ‘put things right’ for the resident.

It is noted that the resident has not listed any of the repairs considered in this complaint as outstanding in her communications with the Ombudsman, other than a cistern still being loose.

Orders

Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident £225 as a remedy to the time, trouble and frustration the failings identified in this report caused. If the £100 previously offered has already been paid, it can be deducted from this amount.

Recommendations

The landlord should attend to check the reported loose cistern and repair if required.
The landlord should consider what steps it can take to ensure repairs are completed satisfactorily first time, and how this can be monitored.
The landlord should confirm with the Ombudsman within the next month whether it intends to follow these its recommendations.