Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (201906814)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201906814

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

15 December 2020

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 condition of the property when the resident moved in;
2. The landlord’s handling of the subsequent repair works;
3. The level of compensation offered.

Jurisdiction

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.
In this case, the Ombudsman would not be in a position to determine whether a property is/was in a state of disrepair or is/was unfit for human habitation. There is a separate legal process which residents can follow if they feel their property is in a state of disrepair. They can make a formal Disrepair Claim against their landlord. If the claim is successful, the court can order the landlord to carry out repairs and/or pay compensation. This is a legal process and the resident should consider seeking independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which 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 Ombudsman is unable to give legal advice and therefore we cannot comment on this matter further. However, this Service can look at whether the landlord met its repair responsibilities regarding the property and we can look at the distress and inconvenience caused by any delays in completing repairs.
It is also noted that the resident had accused the landlord of causing her to go into labour due to the stress that it had caused. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding this, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her health has been affected by its actions. Similar to paragraph 5 above, this is a legal process. However, as above, this Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident and her family.
Furthermore, it is also noted that the resident has raised further repair issues that did not form part of the original complaint, such as issues with the lock in the property, and were not part of the report by the local authority’s Environmental Health department’s (Environmental Health’s) detailing the repairs which the landlord should carry out at the property . As these repairs did not form part of the original complaint with the Service, this is not something that we can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. This is in accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, whereby the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The resident may be able to refer a separate complaint to The Ombudsman about these issues once they have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a three-bedroomed house. The resident moved into the property on 5 June 2019, following a mutual exchange.

Policies and Procedures

The government’s Decent Home Standard states that for a property to be decent in accordance with The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) risk assessment procedure:
“…a dwelling should be free of category one hazards, and the existence of such hazards should be a trigger for remedial action unless practical steps cannot be taken without disproportionate expense or disruption.”
In the landlord’s Repairs Guide for Tenants it states that when a repair is reported, the resident would be advised of an appointment time or, alternatively, the contractor will contact the tenant directly with an appointment time. The landlord describes what it expects for a repair in its Service Standards as follows:
1. To carry out work to a good standard that gives value for money.
2. To be quick and reliable.
3. To keep you informed.
4. To be considerate of the fact that we are working in your home.
5. To be clear about what you can expect from us.
Moreover, the landlord categorises repairs as follows:
1. Emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours;
2. Routine repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days and by appointment;
3. Major routine repairs should be completed within three months or as part of a planned works programme of works.
Routine repairs are described as “Defects that can be deferred without serious discomfort, inconvenience or nuisance to the resident or third party, without long-term deterioration of the building.” Specific repairs are also detailed by the landlord into who is obligated to carry out the repair, stating either the landlord or the tenant.
The landlord’s Complaints Procedure follows a two-stage complaints process, in which the landlord aims to provide a stage one response within 28 calendar days from the date the initial complaint was made, with a minimum of bi-weekly contact with the complainant. At stage two, the landlord aims to provide a response within 28 calendar days, with a minimum of weekly contact with the complainant. If the stage two response exceeds the 28 days, an extension should be agreed and the complainant informed accordingly.
The landlord’s Tariff of Discretionary Compensation Payments outlines the merits and circumstances that should be taken into account when considering compensation; this includes the severity, length of time, number of people affected, customer’s vulnerability and the time and trouble spent. Compensation amounts are categorised into three levels: low, medium and high failure. For low failure, the landlord would consider a payment of £5.00 – £50.00; for medium, it is £50.00 to £250.00; and for high failure, £250.00 to £500.00.

Summary of events

On 6 June 2019 the resident reported a broken light fitting in the property and barbed wire around the fence at the rear of the garden. On 12 June 2019 the resident contacted the landlord for an update on live wiring hanging from the bedroom, which was in reference to the broken light fitting. An inspection of the property was carried out on 17 June 2019 as the resident was not happy with the condition of the property.
In a telephone call with the landlord on 19 June 2019, the resident confirmed that the live wire issue had been resolved, but requested information regarding the outcome of the inspection, as she wanted to know when the other repair issues would be resolved. After a conversation with the landlord, the resident stated she wished to make a formal complaint in regard to the condition of the property. She highlighted numerous repair issues, such as having no running water, issues with the boiler (heating and hot water), the toilet, fire doors and the general safety of the property. She requested confirmation of who passed the property as being in a lettable condition, and who passed the boiler and carried out the gas-safety checks. The resident also referenced her difficulty in ascertaining clear answers to her questions and therefore asked for a single point of contact in order to resolve the repair issues. In addition, she advised that the whole household was vulnerable, she was heavily pregnant, and she had children, one of whom had additional requirements.
Following the above call, the landlord raised the following repair work orders on 19 June 2019:
1. Low water pressure in property (repair completed on 20 June 2019)
2. Downstairs toilet leak (repair completed on 21 June 2019)
3. On 20 June 2019, the resident also reported a leak to the property’s boiler.
4. On 27 June 2019 a repair to the guttering of the property was completed.
5. On 28 June 2019 an inspection of the property took place which confirmed the following repairs were either completed or needed completing:
6. Downstairs toilet wash-hand basin needed resealing (Complete)
7. A joint on the kitchen work top needed making good (Complete)
8. Gutters were blocked (Complete)
9. Noise coming from extractor fan in the bathroom (Complete)
10. The kitchen extractor fan was dirty (Complete)
11. Make good the trip hazards in the garden (Complete)
12. Water pressure very low in the property (Complete)
13. Make good all wires left dangling (Complete)
14. TRV/ Lock shields and pipe clips missing (incomplete)
15. Internal doors needed adjusting so they stay closed (Complete)
16. Gasket around front door needed making good (Complete)
17. Seal up the wash-hand basin in the bathroom to the pedestal (Complete)
18. Gate latch needed fixing (Complete)
The following works raised were not going to be considered by the landlord because these did not fall under the landlord’s repairing obligations, or because they were deemed to be cosmetic rather than maintenance issues:
1. The tree next door to the property was overgrown and had birds nesting in it. The landlord confirmed it would not address this issue whilst birds were nesting.
2. The resident had only one drawer in the kitchen and cupboard doors did not match. The landlord confirmed that it would not be carrying out further works to the layout of the kitchen.
3. The tiles in the bathroom and kitchen were fit for purpose and therefore the landlord would not replace these.
4. The landlord would not reinstate the burglar alarm, as it was not something the landlord maintained.
5. The fencing was adequate for marking the boundary, for which it was intended. However, the gap at the bottom of the fence had been closed.
In the landlord’s email of 28 June 2019, the landlord confirmed its understanding of the complaint as the following:
1. The property was not fit for habitation, following the commencement of the tenancy;
2. There were a number of repair issues that required resolving.
The landlord confirmed that all issued had now been completed apart from the guttering (this had in fact been completed), the Thermostatic Radiator Valve, and the lock shields and pipe clips, which the landlord confirmed it would arrange to be undertaken. The landlord also said it would provide a response to issues relating to the kitchen and bathroom.
On 1 July 2019 a heating contractor attended the property to complete the boiler repair but was unable to gain access to the property.
On 2 July 2019 the resident said that the complaint was also about the storage in the kitchen and the standard of the tiling in the bathroom and kitchen. The landlord confirmed that it was fully aware of this was part of the complaint. That same day the resident’s mother contacted the landlord to ask to arrange a Saturday appointment to repair the boiler and radiators. She also asked for a timeframe to fix the alarm and security light.
The landlord responded to the resident’s mother on 3 July 2019 advising that it did not undertake Saturday appointments.
Meanwhile, on 9 July 2019, The Environmental Health issued the landlord a notice letter notifying the landlord of a number of repairs outstanding, with the instruction to visit and investigate as soon as possible, after contact with the resident. The following works were notified:
1. A lack of fire detection in the property
2. A leak in the downstairs toilet
3. A loose wire near the front door
4. Front room door was hard to shut
5. Boiler pipes needed to be boxed in
6. Uneven slabs at the rear of the property
7. Radiators did not work properly
8. Poor lighting outside the property
The landlord spoke with the resident on 10 July 2019 who contended that the kitchen was too small, and she reported that the tiles in the bathroom were cracked. The landlord was given the resident’s mother’s contact details to arrange access for a visit, as the resident was unavailable.
The boiler and leaking radiators repairs were completed on 11 July 2019.
In the landlord’s stage one complaint response of 18 July 2019, the landlord confirmed that all void works had now been completed, as of 27 June 2019, apart from a leak emanating from the property’s boiler and a repair to damaged radiator valve caps, which were completed on 11 July 2019. The landlord apologised for the void issues not being resolved before the resident’s tenancy began, and offered £100.00 compensation broken down as follows:
1. Failure of Service – £50.00
2. Time and Trouble – £50.00
Regarding the request for further works to be carried out, the landlord concluded that the following would not be completed:
1. Tree next door growing large/ concerns regarding birds nesting – the landlord confirmed that no further action was required at this moment in time. It advised that if the tree did start causing any structural problems to the resident’s property or her neighbour’s, then the necessary actions would be taken;
2. Not enough drawers in the kitchen – the landlord confirmed that this would not be considered as a repair or a void issue, as the current kitchen is fit for purpose. The landlord advised the resident that if she would like any further units fitted, she was required to complete an alteration request as this would be her responsibility to pay for;
3. Tiles in the bathroom and kitchen – the landlord confirmed that the current tiles were fit for purpose and did not require repair or replacement;
4. Burglar alarm – the landlord confirmed that It did not maintain burglar alarms as this was a tenant responsibility; and
5. Fencing had not been maintained – the landlord explained that the purpose of the fencing is to mark the boundary, which it said was adequate for this purpose. However, it understood that there was a gap at the bottom of the fence, and therefore had arranged for its contractor to attend and close the gap.
This concluded the landlord’s stage one response.
Meanwhile, due to not being able to contact the resident’s mother, the landlord visited the property on 17 July 2019 and left a calling card. A further attempt was made on 31 July 2019 to no avail and another calling card was left.
Later that day, on 31 July 2019, following contact from the resident, an inspection of the property took place. The landlord and resident discussed the Environmental Health report, which highlighted the following points in regard to the property’s condition:
1. Lack of lighting outside the property (still did not work)
2. Leak in the downstairs toilet, which had been resolved but the flooring had bubbled
3. Loose wiring in the hallway for the security alarm (resident confirmed this was her responsibility)
4. Front room door did not shut properly (confirmed as resolved)
5. Boiler pipes not boxed in (this needed to be done properly)
6. Lack of fire detection (confirmed two fire alarms in property which was sufficient)
7. Uneven slabs to the rear of property (these needed to be lifted and new slabs laid, as this was dangerous)
8. Radiators did not work (resolved)
The resident also brought up other issues, such as:
1. The kitchen not having sufficient storage for the size of the family (discussed as something that should have been considered before accepting the property)
2. Trees to all aspects of the property were hanging over from the other properties onto her boundaries (resident agreed to discuss with Local Authority as not landlord’s responsibility)
3. Meter box to the side of the property could do with being replaced (the landlord agreed to arrange for a replacement)
4. The bins that belong to the property have holes in and were in a poor state (the landlord confirmed this was the Local Authority’s responsibility)
5. The flooring in the kitchen was lifting and needed fixing down (the landlord agreed to raise a repair order to relay vinyl)
6. The wire fencing to the rear marking the boundary is sticking out and hanging off needed to be removed (the landlord agreed to raise work order to make this safe)
The resident requested that her complaint be escalated on 12 August 2019, on the basis that she felt that the property was not safe, and she was not satisfied that the works had been completed. She said the fuse box was tripping regularly and she was having to re-set it, which she said was a health and safety risk as she was heavily pregnant. She stated that she felt the electrics in the property were inadequate, and she alleged that contractors had caused damage to appliances within the property, which she wanted compensation for. The resident wanted all the works completed at once, not in stages, as she was due to give birth in five weeks.
In a phone call on 13 August 2019, the resident also brought up that she had had no contact, nor been given timeframes for completion of the works.
In the landlord’s email of 14 August 2019, the landlord acknowledged the escalation request and confirmed its understanding of the complaint as:
1. The resident was not happy with the response provided to her at stage one;
2. The resident did not feel that issues she had raised had been addressed;
3. The resident felt that there were still many repairs that were outstanding and had requested for these to be completed; and
4. The resident had also requested that the compensation offer be reviewed.
The landlord confirmed the next steps as:
1. It would liaise with the relevant departments and make them aware of the outstanding issues and get an update on the current status of the outstanding repairs;
2. It would acknowledge the previous lack of communication, and issue
3. feedback to relevant departments to assure service is improved; and
4. It said that once the works had been completed, it would then review the compensation offered.
On 15 August 2019, the following repair orders were raised by the landlord:
1. To lift and re-bed uneven slabs to the rear of the property
2. Renew wire fencing at the rear of the property
3. Box in pipework to the boiler
4. Renew meter cupboard to the side of the property
5. Secure kitchen vinyl flooring
On 20 August 2019 the landlord spoke with the resident to confirm the repair work orders that had been raised. The resident wanted specific timeslots for these to be undertaken and as such the aforementioned repair work orders were subsequently cancelled. The resident also raised other points as follows:
1. She explained that it had been agreed that new slabs would be laid, and the garden grass area would be cut into a rectangle shape, and therefore would refuse access if this was not carried out as stated;
2. She wanted to know how the pipework would be boxed in when the previous tenant had tiled around the area;
3. She also stated she needed two new meter boxes not just one as the work order denoted;
4. She was not happy that the kitchen flooring was going to be repaired rather than replaced. She advised that the flooring had been further damaged by water penetration and needed to be replaced;
5. She also requested the downstairs toilet be replaced as this had been damaged following a water leak.
An appointment for the lighting repair was scheduled for the morning of 27 August 2019. With regard to the bins, the landlord advised the resident to contact the Local Authority, but the resident refused as she would have to pay for their replacement and would not do so as she did not damage them. The landlord confirmed that it would carry out a survey of the kitchen in relation the kitchen storage but stated that the property had been accepted by the resident as it was.
Additional points were raised by the resident as follows:
1. The resident wanted an empty cupboard where a water tank was removed turned into a storage cupboard, with shelves fitted by the landlord;
2. The resident was unhappy with the loss of water pressure in the property when using multiple taps at the same time;
3. The resident requested that the outside of the property be cleaned, which she said had been agreed with the landlord;
4. The resident reported that the back gate was broken and the toilet door was ‘hanging off’;
5. The resident wanted the lawn and the trees trimmed as they were overgrown;
6. The resident reported that she had no fence in the back garden;
7. The resident reported that there were holes and cracks in the downstairs toilet walls, and the tiles in the upstairs bathroom were damaged;
8. The resident stated she could not use her front gate due to the overgrown trees; and
9. The resident wanted to be reimbursed for a plumber call out following a leak which damaged the laminate flooring in the hallway.
The resident asserted that all the above had been promised to be completed by the landlord previously.
A contractor attended the property on 23 August 2019 and confirmed there were no further leaks.
An internal email dated 27 August 2019 provided an update of the works as follows:
1. Lack of fire detection – the resident had one at the top and bottom of the stairs;
2. Loose wire near front door – the resident had resolved;
3. Front room door hard to shut – This has been resolved;
4. Boiler pipes to be boxed in – This was partially completed but not to a good standard so is being re-done properly and a job had been raised;
5. Uneven slabs to the rear – the landlord’s contractors had completed this during the void period but not to a good standard;
6. Radiators did not work properly – resolved
7. Lighting outside – the landlord had completed this during the void period but issue was not resolved. The landlord would be going back to complete;
8. Meter cupboards – only one needed replacing.
9. Flooring – landlord agreed this could be resealed
On 27 August 2019 all electrical work was completed, with both outside light fittings being replaced. The resident called, however, to state that she was not advised that her electrics would have to be turned off for half the day. The resident was also dissatisfied that there were so many repair issues outstanding that had not been resolved. The landlord explained that it had a list from the Environmental Health and it would ensure that those works were carried out. The landlord attempted to schedule repair appointments, but the resident required specific appointment times which the contractors could not accommodate. The resident requested that all works be completed within three weeks as her baby would be due then.
In a further call with the landlord on 27 August 2019, the resident wished to further escalate the complaint as she was not happy that her list of repairs had not been actioned. The landlord went through the Environmental Health report and discussed the repairs as follows:
1. Toilet leak – the resident requested reimbursement for the cost of the flooring, having had to source her own plumber who ripped up the flooring.
2. Internal Door – the resident was unhappy that this was not added to the repair list.
3. Boiler Pipes – The resident wanted a specific appointment time for this that could not be accommodated.
4. Meter doors – the resident stated she had requested two doors not one.
5. Electrical works – This was completed that day, but the resident wanted reimbursement for food that had spoilt as a result of the electricity being switched off for a period of time whilst the works had been carried out.
6. Garden slabs – an appointment had been arranged but the resident did not want this completed unless new slabs replaced the old ones, as she said this is what was promised.
The resident informed the landlord on 29 August 2019 that she had gone into labour and therefore asked that the landlord liaise with the resident’s mother to arrange repair work orders to be carried out. The resident’s mother was only able to accommodate appointments after 5:00pm, however. It was later confirmed with the resident’s mother that an appointment after 5:00pm on 4 September 2019 would be undertaken.
On the same call the landlord agreed to reimburse the resident for the bins if she provided an invoice from the Local Authority. The resident did not wish to do this and requested the landlord contact the Local Authority directly. A further call on 29 August 2019 confirmed that the landlord would attempt to liaise directly with the Local Authority regarding the bins.
On 4 September 2019 the contractors were unable to complete their inspection due to no access. It was later revealed that the resident’s mother had been caught in traffic. The contractors did manage to inspect issues relating to the exterior of the property and confirmed:
1. That security lighting was fitted to the side and rear of the property;
2. That a work order was raised for the slabs at the rear of the property;
3. That the property only required one new meter box and not two;
4. That one bin had a hole in it, but the others were fine;
5. That the gate was fit for purpose and had a new latch;
6. That the metal fencing to the rear of the property was fit for purpose;
7. That the trees to the side and rear of the property were the responsibility of the Local Authority;
8. That the lawns to the rear of the property had been maintained;
9. That the gate at the top of the drive had no functionality issues.
On 9 September 2019 the landlord emailed the resident’s mother in regard to the inspection that was scheduled on 4 September 2019, in order to arrange a new date for the inspection, being as the resident was in hospital. The landlord followed this up with a further email on 16 September 2019, due to the resident’s mother not being able to discuss the issue on a previous call attempt.
The landlord emailed the resident’s mother on 26 September 2019 to try to arrange for an inspection of the property to be undertaken.
On 11 October 2019 Environmental Health emailed the landlord as it would have expected that all the repairs would have been completed. Environmental Health explained that they would contact the resident in December 2019 to confirm the works had been resolved. In the meantime, Environmental Health advised that the case would be closed.
Following a further inspection of the property on 15 October 2019, the following repair work orders were raised:
1. Excavate and lay new slabs to the rear of the property (20sqm) (completed on 12 November 2019)
2. Square off grass area, so slabs were aligned (completed on 12 November 2019)
The remaining works were scheduled to take place on 19 November 2019. They were as follows:
1. Box in pipework to boiler
2. Renew meter cupboard to side of property
3. Re-hang rear gate
4. Trim back trees to left boundary
5. Re-lay kitchen flooring
On 30 October 2019 an internal email revealed what was discussed with the resident on the previous visit to the property regarding what works would and would not be considered:
1. Storage – following the removal of a water tank, the resident wanted shelves installed in the empty cupboard. The landlord advised that it did not need to provide shelves.
2. Water pressure – no action. Job was raised and marked as complete on 19 June 2019.
3. External cleaning of property – not mentioned on visit, so no further action required.
4. Back garden gate was broken – Resolved.
5. Toilet door was hanging off – Repair work order to be raised. Not mentioned on visit or Environmental Health letter.
6. Lawn and trees were overgrown – Discussed on visit and confirmed as not the landlord’s responsibility. Action required was to cut back trees to side boundary and level existing tree stumps. The lawn was the resident’s responsibility.
7. Fence – discussed on visit and landlord confirmed there was a metal fence there. This was not on the Environmental Health letter and no further action was required.
8. Walls in downstairs toilet were cracked – this was not mentioned on the visit and was not on the Environmental Health letter.
9. Damaged tiles in upstairs bathroom – discussed on visit but the landlord advised there was no issue. This was not on the Environmental Health letter. No further action was required.
10. Front gate access – discussed on visit and landlord advised that it was the resident’s responsibility to cut back any overgrown foliage that was hindering her access.
11. Laminate flooring – this was not mentioned on the recent visit and was not on the Environmental Health letter.
The resident called the landlord on 4 November 2019 to ask that the complaint be escalated. The landlord explained that it would need to provide her stage two response first. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction regarding the works and wanted to escalate to this Service. She was not happy that the kitchen flooring was not going to be replaced, that the tiles were not going to be fixed, and was not happy with the kitchen space.
On 7 November 2019 the landlord raised a work order to trim the trees on the boundary of the property and grind down tree stumps to ground level (completed on 5 December 2019).
On 12 November 2019 the new slabs were laid and the grass area was squared off, so slabs were aligned. On 12 November 2019 a repair work order was raised to box in piping and repair the gate scheduled for 19 November 2019.
Meanwhile, that same day the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the works that were going to be carried out.
On 13 November 2019 in a further phone call with the resident, the landlord confirmed an appointment date for 19 November 2019 for all remaining works to be completed in one visit, as requested. Again, the resident was unhappy that the landlord had not addressed all her concerns.
On 19 November 2019 operatives attended the property to complete the works but they were unable to complete all the repair workorders as the resident advised she had to pick up her children. However, on this date it became clear that the boiler pipework could not be boxed in for ventilation reasons. It was agreed that works would thereafter be carried out before the resident went on the school run. The remaining works were re-scheduled to be completed on 29 November 2019. She also stated she was unhappy with the standard of work carried out in relation to the slabs and remained dissatisfied that not all works she had raised were going to be completed.
On 20 November 2019 the resident reported that her fence had fallen down, due to bad weather and because an operative had removed a slab which caused the fence to fall down. She wanted to know if the fence and the gate would be repaired. She also asked about the boiler pipes not being boxed in, as she was advised they needed to ‘breath’. She also wanted her locks changing because she reported that the locks were causing a draught, making her child ill. Furthermore, the resident reiterated her dissatisfaction with the laying of the garden slabs, as they did not cover the full area.
On 22 November 2019, Environmental Health contacted the landlord to request an update on the repairs, as the tenant had informed them that not all the works had been completed. An internal email advised that the works outstanding related to repair orders that it could not gain access to the property for, in order to complete.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 November 2019, stating that following the previous conversation on 19 November 2019, she had not been given any further information. The landlord’s response of 27 November 2019, advised that it had not received any updates apart from what was already provided: that contractors would attend the property on 29 November 2019, with the contractors being aware that the resident would need to leave the property at 2:00pm to do the school run. The resident was also advised that her complaint had been given a new contact from the landlord’s Complex Complaints Team.
On 29 November 2019 works were undertaken to the gate, slabs, trees and meter box.
In the landlord’s email, dated 4 December 2019, it explained that it had agreed to complete the following works, in order to resolve the complaint:
1. Repair gate
2. Re-lay rear slabs
3. Cut back trees
4. Stick down kitchen flooring
5. Repair meter box
The landlord confirmed that the works for the gate, slabs, trees and meter box had all been completed by 29 November 2019, and further appointments were being arranged to clear the debris left by the contractors and to level off the paving area at the rear of the garden with more gravel.
Regarding the kitchen floor, the landlord explained that it was prepared to complete this work, but this would be recharged back to the resident because it believed that the resident had caused the damage herself. The landlord said that it had evidenced this with photographs showing the condition of the flooring when the work was originally raised, and then later photographs showing the floor in a considerably worse state.
With regard to the fence, the landlord confirmed this would be inspected on 5 December 2019, to decide the best way to proceed with this.
Lastly, the landlord advised that once all the works outstanding had been completed, it would undertake a full review of the case, which would then conclude the stage two response.
On 4 December 2019 a repair work order was raised to build up ground level six sqm to edging and cover in gravel three sqm (completed 1 January 2020).
On 5 December 2019 contractors attended to finish trimming the trees and level tree stumps.
The contractor visited the property on 5 December 2019 as the resident had advised the fence had fallen down. The contractor concluded that the fencing was in good condition and did not need replacing. Nevertheless, a repair work order was raised that same day to remove old fence and install a new three-foot fence (completed on 2 January 2020). On 5 December 2019 a further repair work order was raised to unblock front and rear guttering (completed 2 January 2020).
On 2 January 2020 the fencing at the rear of the property was replaced.
On 3 January 2020 the resident called about low pressure when more than one tap was used at once, although one tap was reportedly used and still had low pressure. Also, it was reported that the kitchen taps were difficult to switch off, with the hot tap continuing to flow (completed 31 Jan 2020).
On 6 January 2020 the resident chased a response to her complaint, as she said she had not had contact about this since December 2019. The landlord apologised for the delay, citing high case volumes and asked for confirmation that all the works had been completed.
In the landlord’s stage two complaint response of 12 February 2020, the landlord firstly apologised for the delay in providing its response. It then acknowledged that there were a number of repair issues which should have been resolved prior to the resident moving into the property. The landlord apologised that these works were not completed before the resident moved into the property.
The landlord also acknowledged that there had been delays in carrying out some of the repairs subsequently. However, the landlord contended that the delays were, in part, due to the resident’s refusal to engage with it when it had attempted to arrange appointments for the repairs to be completed.
The landlord was unable to uphold the complaint, as there had been no further service failures identified, other than those that were identified at stage one of the complaint process. The landlord reiterated its offer of compensation from stage one. This concluded the landlord’s complaints procedure.
In conversation with this Service on 23 June 2020, the resident remained dissatisfied with her living conditions and the landlord’s handling of the repair issues in the property. As a resolution, the resident wanted the kitchen to be surveyed.

Assessment and Findings

The condition of the property on the commencement of the tenancy

When a property is void, a landlord is obliged, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Decent Homes Standard and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that when a tenancy commences it is ‘fit for human habitation’ and free from category one hazards, (category one hazards are serious and urgent health and safety risks). Further, during the void period, prospective tenants have the opportunity to inspect the property, to see if the property is suitable for their needs.
In the event that a prospective tenant raised issues relating to the condition of the property during the void period, any necessary repairs and alterations should generally be made before the tenant moves in. Alternatively, the landlord and tenant could formally agree a timeframe in which the tenant could expect works raised during the void period to be completed, which could potentially be following the commencement of the tenancy. On the other hand, the prospective tenant could refuse the property as not being suitable for their needs due to, for example, the size of the property.
Now, in this instance, it is not disputed by either party that the property was not in good condition when the tenancy began. Shortly after the tenancy commenced, the resident raised various repair issues inside and outside the property. It is, however, important to note that no category one hazards were identified despite the numerous inspections carried out, and the property thus did meet the minimum standard for habitation as detailed in the Decent Homes Standard.
This Service has noted that the resident feels that the property was dangerous and not fit for habitation. As per the jurisdiction paragraph above, this Service is not in a position to determine whether a property is/was in a state of disrepair or is/was unfit for human habitation, as that is a matter best determined by the courts. However, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors in respect of the repairs needed to the property, which in this case did not identify any category one hazards in the property. In instances where a repair was considered a potential health and safety issue, such as the uneven slabs in the rear of the property, the landlord endeavoured to complete remedial works to rectify this; even so, this did not constitute a major health and safety concern, as all parties were aware of the issue and thus could be avoided until the work had been carried out. Therefore, this Service is satisfied the landlord had acted in accordance with the stipulations of the Decent Homes Standard and no failure in service has been identified.
Furthermore, it is also important to note that the resident could have raised these issues after viewing the property, where the landlord would have had the opportunity to address the repair issues before the resident moved in. The resident’s concerns regarding the size and suitability of the property could have also been considered at this point. Ultimately, the onus was on the resident to satisfy herself that the property was suitable for her needs, including whether the amenities such as the kitchen space and storage space were satisfactory. Therefore, this Service is satisfied that, despite the numerous repair issues identified in the resident’s property and the distress and inconvenience this inevitably caused, there was no significant failure of service by the landlord as the resident accepted the property as it was.

The landlord’s handling of the reports of repairs in the property

Nevertheless, once the landlord was informed of the number of repair issues, it was thereby obliged to carry out an assessment of the reported repairs and conduct remedial works in line with its Repairs Guide for Tenants. In its stage one complaint response, dated 18 July 2019, the landlord acknowledged that the property’s condition did not meet its expectations and was indeed considered as a failure in service, acknowledging that these issues should have been resolved before the resident’s tenancy began. The landlord was correct to identify that the number of repairs required following the resident moving into the property was unreasonable and should have been completed during the voids period.
To put matters right for the resident, the landlord carried out repairs to the identified void works, which were completed by 11 July 2019; it apologised for the inconvenience caused, and it offered £100.00 compensation, calculated at £50.00 for failure in service and £50.00 for time and trouble. Based on the disruption up until this point, the volume of appointments required, the amount of repairs reported, and the time and trouble taken, this Service is satisfied that the landlord had provided adequate redress for the distress and inconvenience caused, and was in line with its Tariff of Discretionary Compensation Payments in paragraph 14.
However, before the stage one complaint response of 18 July 2019, the resident had contacted Environmental Health, who, in turn, had contacted the landlord with a list of repairs that Environmental Health requested be addressed. It is worth noting here that Environmental Health did not carry out an inspection of the property, and the majority of the repair works it listed had been completed by the time Environmental Health contacted the landlord. That said, there were still some issues from the list that had not been fully resolved, and the resident raised further repair issues subsequently. Thus, in accordance with the landlord’s Repairs Policy, the landlord would be expected to carry out a further inspection of the property and address the issues raised in accordance with its Repairs Guide for Tenants as detailed in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12.
Generally, the landlord did carry out the repairs identified within a reasonable timeframe, and it was evident that the landlord did attempt to accommodate the resident’s requests for specific times for works to be carried out, which caused slight delays in completing the work. For example, following the inspection of the property on 31 July 2019, it was identified that two aspects from Environmental Health’s letter remained unresolved: the boiler pipes needing to be boxed in and the uneven slabs to the rear of property needed to be addressed. Repair work orders for both were raised on 15 August 2019, but were subsequently cancelled due to the resident wishing for the specific timeslots for these to be undertaken, which could not be accommodated for at the time. It is evident that the landlord did attempt to negotiate further appointments throughout August 2019 but to no avail. It was also evident that the landlord persisted in trying to rearrange these appointments throughout September 2019, even liaising with the resident’s mother whilst the resident was unavailable and attending appointments that provided no access to the property.
Following similar attempts over the ensuing months, the works were completed, with the new slabs being laid on 12 November 2019, and the boiler pipework was scheduled for 19 November 2019 (although it is noted that this could not be completed due to ventilation concerns). In short, although the repairs were not completed in line with the landlord’s specified timeframes for repairs as detailed in paragraph 11, this was not solely attributed to delays caused by the landlord.
Furthermore, the landlord provided ample opportunity for the resident to detail her repair issues, there were a number of inspections of the property carried out, and the landlord also carried out works that it was not strictly obliged to do, such as providing a new bin and carrying out work to trim back trees. It is understood that the resident remained unhappy that not all reported repairs were considered by the landlord. However, the landlord has, during its inspections of the property, carried out an assessment of all issues raised, and clearly explained the reasons why it would not carry out some of the works, which was reasonable in the circumstances. This can be evidenced in the stage one and stage two complaint responses.
Still, this Service has identified areas in which the landlord could have improved its response to the reports of repairs. First, on occasions it was clear that the resident was having difficulty contacting the landlord to obtain specific timescales in which the repair work was to take place, an issue that the resident had raised as early as 19 June 2019 when she requested a single point of contact as she was having difficulty obtaining information. For example, following the inspection of the property on 31 July 2019, the resident had to contact the landlord on 13 August 2019, to advise that she had not been given timescales for the repair works. This was acknowledged by the landlord in its email acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint on 14 August 2019. The landlord contacted the resident on 20 August 2019 to discuss the timeframe for the repair work orders to take place, but this was two weeks after the inspection took place. This was not in line with the landlord’s Repairs Guide for Tenants, detailed in paragraphs 10,11 and 12, and was not addressed in the landlord’s stage two complaint response. In light of this, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the resident should be compensated a further £50.00 for this failure in service, which is in line with the landlord’s Tariff of Discretionary Compensation Payments, as per paragraph 14.
Second, there were also delays in providing the stage two complaint response, with the resident having to chase the landlord for an update on 6 January 2020, following the last email update from the landlord on 4 December 2019. The landlord provided its final response on 12 February 2020 in which it did acknowledge the delay and apologised. However, this Service believes that this should have been acknowledged in line with the landlord’s Tariff of Discretionary Compensation Payments and therefore offered a further £50.00 compensation for poor complaint handling. It is also recommended that the landlord consider further complaints handling training to its staff.
Lastly, on occasions it was not clear what repair works would be undertaken, with the resident and landlord suggesting contradictory events. On a few occasions the landlord had to clarify exactly what it would and would not be undertaking. The resident had numerous contacts with various members of the landlord’s staff and contractors who could not provide specific details when required. For example, on 20 August 2019 the resident contended that it had been agreed that new slabs would be laid, and the garden grass area would be cut into a rectangle shape. Again, this led to unnecessary contact from the resident and undue distress, as clarity on these issues were not immediate. Moreover, it is noted that in the initial formal complaint raised by the resident on 19 June 2019 the full list of repairs issues were not logged in the complaint and the resident referenced works that she asserted were part of a list that was promised to be undertaken. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that having a clear audit trail of what works were available to all staff could have prevented this unnecessary contact.
Setting clear next steps and expectations of when works were going to take place could have alleviated some of the resident’s distress and not resulted in the resident having to contact the landlord on numerous occasions. It is therefore recommended that the landlord review its repairs procedure, to see if improvements can be made that would see a more streamlined approach to its repairs, ensuring that clear expectations, timescales and next steps are provided. Moreover, in line with the landlord’s Tariff of Discretionary Compensation Payments, a further £50.00 compensation should be made for poor communication.
In conclusion, there is no doubt that the amount of repairs identified in the property following the commencement of the tenancy agreement had caused an unnecessary amount of distress and inconvenience to the resident. Whilst it is acknowledged that the resident has found the situation distressing and upsetting, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord ultimately took reasonable steps to meet its obligations to her and to undertake the repairs which fell within its remit to complete. There were, however, instances which constituted a failure in service, namely its poor communication on occasions and delays in providing the stage two response, which means further compensation is appropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in regard to the condition of the property on the commencement of the tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the reports of repairs in the property.

Reasons

Despite the numerous repair issues identified following the commencement of the tenancy, there was no issues category one hazards identified in line with the Decent Home Standard’s stipulations (HHSRS). Moreover, prior to the commencement of the tenancy, the onus was ultimately on the resident to satisfy herself that the property met her’s and her family’s needs.
However, it was not disputed by either party that the amount of repairs identified was excessive, with the landlord acknowledging that these repairs should have taken place during the voids period. The subsequent compensation offered at stage one was adequate for the distress and inconvenience caused, and was in line with the landlord’s Tariff of Discretionary Compensation Payments.
Nevertheless, further failures in service were identified during the period thereafter, in which the repairs were being undertaken. This was in relation to communication and complaints handling, which this Service found warranted further compensation.

Orders

The landlord is ordered:
1. to pay £100.00 compensation for its failures in communication.
2. to pay £50.00 compensation for the delay in providing the stage two response.
This is to be completed within 28 days of the date of this letter.
The total compensation amount, including the £100.00 offered at stage one, is £250.00.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the £100.00 compensation for its noted failures at stage one of the complaints process.
It is recommended that the landlord consider further training for its staff in relation to its complaints handling.
It is recommended that the landlord carry out a review of how it responds to repair cases moving forward, to look to facilitate better, more effective and clearer communication.