Magenta Living (202002947)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002947

Magenta Living

12 April 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 condition of the property at the commencement of the resident’s tenancy.
   2. the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is the assured shorthold tenant of the landlord of a 2-bedroom property. The resident moved into the property on 1 June 2020.
3. The correspondence has not been provided to this service but it is not disputed that after the resident moved in, the resident requested that the walls of the property be redecorated in magnolia, and that that request was refused. The resident was offered £100 in decorating vouchers to reimburse him for the cost of paint.
4. The resident made a complaint on 29 June 2020. He stated, that having been a tenant of the landlord previously, he was of the view that it was “normal practice” “to put the flat back to a normal condition before a new tenancy begins”. He was also informed that the property was “ready” to move into, but that he was of the view it was not ready because “the property was fully decorated”. The resident cited a telephone conversation between the landlord and the resident’s brother in relation to a different property, and his own previous experience of having received a decorating allowance, as evidence in support of his complaint. 
5. The landlord responded on 2 July 2020 at stage one of the complaint process citing its Lettable Standard Policy which stated that:
   1. Where a void property is found to be in a very poor decorative order decorating vouchers may be issued.
   2. In certain circumstances, for example where the property is in such a poor state that chances of a quick re-let would be reduced, appropriate internal decorations may be carried out
   3. In designated elderly properties where internal decoration is in a poor condition, the necessary works will be undertaken before the property is offered to a potential new tenant.
6. The landlord stated that the photographs and property specification showed that the property was in good condition and did not require full decoration. The landlord also noted that the resident had been offered a decorating voucher for £100 to help with the cost of paint.
7. The resident wrote to the landlord by email on 9 July 2020 requesting a copy of a “survey” and asked the landlord to obtain a quotation for decoration costs so that the resident could assess how much the landlord had saved by not redecorating the property. He also added that the paint had cost him £125. He informed the landlord that he had damaged the walls while decorating. He was of the view that no one would want to be offered a flat in the way it was decorated. He said he would refer the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
8. The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day, and treated the resident’s email as a request to escalate the complaint. It stated that a complaint hearing could not take place due to the Covid -19 pandemic “as this requires a panel of people to gather in a confined space”. The landlord referred the resident to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
9. The resident informed the service that he paid £125 for paint and £300 for labour. The resident wanted to be reimbursed for the cost and his time, he wanted a copy of a report, and for the landlord to inspect the damage the resident had caused by steaming off the wallpaper off the walls in the property, in order to redecorate.   

Assessment and findings

The condition of the property at the commencement of the resident’s tenancy.

10. The lettings policy is as quoted by the landlord in its email 2 July 2020. There is no evidence that the property was in ‘very poor decorative order or in poor condition’. Poor condition does not mean the style in which a property is decorated, but the decorative order of the property and whether it is in need of repair.
11. The property specification dated 9 April 2020 stated that no decoration was required, except to rub down the bathroom ceiling and paint.
12. The dispute revolves around whether a property being described as ready to let refers to style (colours, wallpaper pattern) in which it was decorated. The resident made an assumption that “ready to let” meant that the property would be painted magnolia. While the resident felt his previous experiences were sufficient evidence that was the case, it is not possible to extrapolate a policy from individual experiences. That is not an evidential basis on which to base the resident’s assumption.
13. There is nothing in the landlord’s policy, or any contractual or legal obligation requiring the landlord to redecorate in the circumstances where the resident was objecting to the style in which a property is decorated.
14. It was therefore reasonable of the landlord to have described the property as ready to let even through the property was not painted magnolia, or to the resident’s taste. It was also reasonable for the landlord to decline to redecorate the property.
15. It was a reasonable exercise of the landlord’s discretion to offer the sum of £100 decoration vouchers to pay towards redecoration. There was no evidence of the property being in a ‘poor’ state of decoration, which would have required such an offer, in accordance with the landlord’s voids policy. However, offering the voucher demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to improve the landlord and tenant relationship, and assist with achieving a resolution.
16. It is reasonable to conclude that the document the resident required, that he referred to as a survey or a report prepared before he moved in, may be the property specification document prepared following a void inspection. There is no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with that document. If the landlord did not do so, it should consider doing so.
17. It was, however, reasonable for the landlord not to go to the expense, time and trouble of obtaining a quotation for works it was not intending to carry out. Given the resident’s report, the landlord ought to inspect the damage by the resident in any event.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

18. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it is a 2-stage process. The first stage can be addressed by a supervisor, team leader or manager responsible for the service, or a manager.
19. The complaint was appropriate given that the landlord dealt with the complaint within five working days of receipt, in line with its policy. Furthermore, the decision was reviewed by the landlord who provided a reasonable explanation for its decision.
20. The policy also states that the resident can request escalation to a formal complaint hearing but there needs to be a valid reason. It does not appear that the resident requested to escalate the complaint but the landlord exercised its discretion by treating the resident’s email of 9 July 2020 as a request for escalation within the landlord’s complaints procedure. This was appropriate, given that the resident made it clear that he was unhappy with the landlord’s decision, and intended to refer the complaint to this service. This service would have required the resident to have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure before investigating the matter, without which the complaint would not come within the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
21. The landlord would have been entitled to consider the resident’s grounds for escalation. It was reasonable for the landlord to have declined to hold a face-to-face meeting in the circumstances of the pandemic. However, it was not reasonable to refuse escalation of the complaint on those grounds.  The landlord could have offered a review by alternative means such as by telephone, by video, or offered to review the complaint based on the documents. Moreover, the final letter did not provide the contact details of the Housing Ombudsman or make the resident’s fully clear as to its rights as required by paragraph 3.4 of the landlord’s complaint policy.
22. However, the resident had already evinced his intention to take the matter to this service, and he had not requested a review by the landlord’s. Therefore, while it is not good practice to have refused escalation for the reasons the landlord provided, there was little or no prejudicial impact on the resident by this failure.

Determination (decision)

23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was:
    1. No maladministration in relation to the condition of the property at the commencement of the resident’s tenancy.
    2. No maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

24. There was no obligation for the landlord to redecorate the property and the landlord has acted reasonably in making its offer of £100.
25. While the landlord quite correctly treated the resident’s suggestion he take the matter to this service as a request for escalation of the complaint, the landlord should make alternative arrangements for reviewing complaints during the Covid 19 pandemic. However, there was no impact on the resident in relation to the complaint handling.