Mid Devon District Council (202207247)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207247

Mid Devon District Council

28 February 2024

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 the landlord’s:
1. Decision to recharge the resident for repairs upon termination of his tenancy.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the resident’s new property when he moved in.

Background

The resident moved to a 3 bedroom house with the landlord by way of mutual exchange on 17 September 2018. The secure tenancy was taken by assignment and held as a joint tenancy. For the purposes of this report this will be referred to as ‘property A.’ The landlord had no known vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The joint tenancy for property A was terminated by the resident’s partner on 4 July 2021. She moved out to an unknown address. The landlord allowed the resident to remain in the property under a use and occupation agreement while working with its housing options team to help him find suitable alternative accommodation. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord intended to issue him with a rechargeable repair invoice for unauthorised work he and/or previous occupants had completed at property A.
The resident moved to a 1 bedroom bungalow with the landlord on 14 February 2022. For the purposes of this report this will be referred to as ‘property B.’
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 17 March 2022. He was unhappy that the landlord had issued him with a recharge invoice for property A for £2,906.78. The landlord advised that as he had moved to the property via mutual exchange, he was liable upon termination of the tenancy for it to undertake repairs to reinstate unauthorised works or damage. Although the landlord had removed some charges to reduce the invoice from £5,320.02, the resident remained upset and considered the bill should be split between him and his former partner.
Upon review of the invoice the resident considered some recharges unreasonable. In particular a recharge to remove a partition in a bedroom. He considered that the partition had always been there and the landlord had not identified it as a non-standard fixture during inspection in 2018.
The resident also added to his complaint that he was unhappy with the condition of property B. He considered that there were repairs that should have been completed before he moved in. In particular he considered that a section of skirting board was rotten and should have been replaced. He said the front door should have been replaced and described a condensate pipe in the kitchen preventing him from pushing his cooker back.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 31 March 2022. It did not uphold either of his complaints. It explained that he had accepted the assignment of the tenancy to property A and accepted liability for the repairs when he completed the mutual exchange. Therefore, it considered him jointly liable for any rechargeable repairs to bring property A to a lettable standard. The landlord supplied photographs of the property and evidence of the signed assignment of tenancy during the mutual exchange.
The landlord’s stage 1 response further explained that it was satisfied that property B met the void and decent home standards when let. It had arranged an inspection on his reports of a rotten skirting board and advised it would discuss the possibility of rerouting the condensate pipe for him. It renewed the front door on 1 March 2022, 11 working days after he had moved in and measured for a replacement back door. It explained that this did not form part of void works and it was satisfied that it was replaced as part of its planned works programme.
Following the resident’s request to escalate his complaint on the 25 April 2022 the landlord issued a stage 2 response on 9 May 2022. While it remained satisfied that the resident remained liable for the void repair charges, it gave the resident opportunity to return to property A to make good some of the listed items. Therefore, providing him an opportunity to reduce the invoice. It also took on board some of his comments regarding the termination process and reduced the invoice by a further £696 as a goodwill gesture.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. While waiting for his complaint to be investigated the resident informed us that he had moved again to a 2 bedroom semi-detached bungalow. The move had been secured by way of a mutual exchange and the tenancy started on 27 February 2023. This will be referred to as ‘property C.’ He raised dissatisfaction that the outstanding recharges for property A had caused him difficulties securing his move and preventing him undertaking work on property C. He considered that there were repairs that the landlord should undertake to property C.

Assessment and findings

Scop of investigation

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The resident’s move to property C took place more than a year after his complaint was duly made to the Ombudsman. Therefore the additional matters raised by the resident had not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and did not form part of his original complaint. As such, these matters will not form part of this investigation. He is encouraged to raise any new concerns with the landlord. It must be given the opportunity to respond and, where appropriate, put things right.

Decision to recharge the resident for repairs upon termination of his tenancy

Paragraph 6.1.3 of the resident’s tenancy agreement for property A states “if you are joint tenants, any one of you can end the tenancy by giving 4 weeks written notice to quit.” While it would have understandably been an unsettling time for the resident the landlord acted appropriately to inspect the condition of the property having received the appropriate notice and termination from his partner.
Following completion of the inspection, the resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord issued him with a rechargeable repair invoice. He considered the charges unreasonable, considered he should not have to pay for the repairs, and that his former partner should be liable for half.
Following a tenancy termination, the landlord’s housing service standards states that it will:
1. Arrange and carry-out a pre-void inspection at a property before a resident moves out, where possible.
2. Inform the resident of any repairs that have to be carried out before the resident moves out.
3. Inform the resident of the amount they will be recharged if they do not complete the works.
The landlord completed the pre-void inspection on 8 March 2022. It arranged to meet the resident at the property to discuss the estimated cost of repairs required to reinstate unauthorised works. It provided him with an estimated cost prior to issuing him with a revised invoice. These actions were appropriate and in line with its service standards.
The landlord issued the resident with a recharge invoice of £2,906.78. This was reduced from £5,320.02 as the landlord considered damage to the kitchen could be covered by its planned works programme. This was a reasonable gesture in the circumstances.
The resident continued to dispute his liability for the rechargeable repairs. However on 31 July 2018 there is evidence that the landlord completed a mutual exchange application with the resident’s former partner. She signed the declaration on their behalf, confirmed their joint tenant status, and confirmed their understanding of the mutual exchange process. The form said but was not limited to:
1. That they accepted that the landlord would recharge any costs for the repair or replacement of damaged fixtures and fittings.
2. That they would thoroughly check the property that they wanted to move into to make sure that all fixtures and fittings are in good working order and free from damage.
3. That they would inspect the property and accept its existing condition.
4. That they would accept liability for all items which are the responsibility of the tenant even those not made good by the tenant moving out.
There is evidence that the landlord inspected property A prior to the agreed mutual exchange. The landlord informed the resident of non-standard fittings and damage within the property. It wrote to the resident and advised it could not accept responsibility for the repair, replacement or maintenance of non-standard items. The property inspection letter was signed by the resident’s joint tenant on 4 September 2018.
The resident continued to express dissatisfaction and disputed that he was liable for the recharges. He said only his former partner had signed the mutual exchange forms on 31 July 2018 and 4 September 2018. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to issue him copies of the mutual exchange acceptance forms that he signed, along with his former partner, on 13 September 2018. It reminded him as joint tenants they were jointly liable for the recharge costs which he had previously acknowledged.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence that both joint tenants signed a mutual exchange acceptance form on 13 September 2018. It confirms a tenancy start date of 17 September 2018. The document includes a signature from the resident to acknowledge that:
1. He had accepted the property and accepted that no internal decoration work will be carried out by the landlord.
2. He accepted responsibility for the (former) tenant’s additions or improvements listed in the property inspection report letter.
3. Should the tenancy terminate in the future, he would be responsible for replacing any original fixtures and fittings which have been removed but considered necessary to the property by the landlord.
4. He accepted the property in its present condition.
5. That he will observe all terms of the tenancy as set out in the tenancy agreement. A copy was supplied at this time.
While it is evident that only the resident’s former partner signed the initial acceptance of the items listed in the landlord’s property inspection in 2018, she did so as a joint tenant. Furthermore the resident attended further meetings with the landlord prior to the mutual exchange and signed the mutual exchange acceptance terms himself.
During the property inspections and meetings in 2018 it would have been the joint tenants/resident’s responsibility to raise any issues with the outgoing resident. For example, to insist that they reinstate any unauthorised works before the mutual exchange. By not doing so the resident accepted the property as seen. The landlord therefore acted reasonably by issuing him with a list of rechargeable repairs on termination of the tenancy.
The resident continued to dispute the rechargeable repair invoice. In doing so the landlord reminded the resident of his tenancy agreement which states that “you must pay for the costs of making good any damage to the property (including fixtures and fittings) or to other council property caused by you or anyone instructed by you failing to take reasonable care. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to remind the resident of his responsibilities under the terms of his tenancy while considering his complaint.
Upon investigation of the resident’s complaint the landlord reviewed the history of the property. It identified that the partition wall in a bedroom had been present through two previous mutual exchanges. As this was now the first time in years that the property would be classified as void, the resident became responsible for its removal. While it remained satisfied that it was the resident’s responsibility to reinstate the bedroom, it acknowledged that lessons could be learned with how it listed the non-standard repairs during its 2018 inspection.
It was therefore reasonable that the landlord provided the resident with an opportunity, should he have chosen to, to make good some repairs. This gave the resident opportunity to reduce the recharge bill. Furthermore it waived a further £696 from the invoice following its discussions as a gesture of goodwill. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to acknowledge the resident’s point of view and put things right.
The resident said that the landlord should pursue his former partner for half the recharges. Joint tenants are jointly and severally liable for all the obligations owed under the tenancy. This is a legal term where two or more people are equally liable for the full extent of a debt. While the landlord assured the resident that it was attempting to trace the joint tenant, it was within its legal right to pursue the resident for the debt while it did. The landlord encouraged the resident to seek independent legal advice and agreed to arrange an affordable repayment plan. This was reasonable in the circumstances and there was no maladministration with the landlord’s decision to recharge the resident for repairs upon termination of his tenancy actions.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the resident’s new property when he moved in

The landlord’s voids management policy states that standard void works will be carried out prior to the property being re let. Works carried out will include, but not limited to:
1. Gas and electrical safety checks.
2. Removal of all items internally / externally and cut garden.
3. Lock changes.
4. Routine repairs, minor decoration, and cleaning.
The resident completed the property sign up and moved to property B on 14 February 2022. There is evidence at this stage that he identified and reported required repairs. This included a leaking toilet pipe, damage to external doors, blown windows, and a small section of skirting board he believed to be rotten. He considered the landlord had failed to complete these repairs and failed to meet its void repair obligations. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports within 24 hours. This was appropriate and in line with its emergency repair timeframes. On inspection, the landlord addressed repairs, reassured him that the property was secure, and it remained satisfied that it had meet its void repair obligations.
The landlord completed a post sign-up appointment on the 2 March 2022. The resident reported that there was an issue with the position of a condensate overflow pipe in the kitchen that was preventing him pushing his cooker back. He reiterated dissatisfaction that a skirting board was rotten and there were issues with the front and rear doors. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord arranged to further inspect these concerns.
On the same day the landlord attended the property to inspect the doors again as an emergency call out. This was appropriate and in line with its response times within its tenancy handbook. The landlord recorded that the property was secure and the damage was considered “fair wear and tear.” It explained that its window and door replacement was ongoing as part of planned works. It explained that this was separate from any void repair works. On 13 March the front door was renewed and the rear door measured for replacement. This was a reasonable response to remove the concerns the resident raised.
The landlord arranged for an inspection of the condensate pipe which was preventing the resident pushing his cooker back. While it was the resident’s preference for his cooker to be flush to his kitchen cupboards, it did not demonstrate that the landlord had failed to meet its void repair obligations. It is common for condensate pipes to be routed through kitchen cupboards. It was therefore reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to offer to inspect and reroute the pipework. This was completed on 9 June 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 31 March 2022. It did not uphold the resident’s complaints. However its records state that it agreed to revisit its response and scheduled an inspection on 28 April 2022 “as new information had come to light.” This was appropriate and demonstrated the landlord acting on information about the number of repair appointments it had received from the resident.
Between the resident’s tenancy start date in February 2022 to May 2022 the resident continued to repeat his repair concerns with the landlord. While there is evidence that the landlord remained in communication and arranged appointments to address his concerns, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the number of days he was taking off work to attend to these meetings. He considered the repairs should have been completed during the void repair stage.
While the landlord reassured the resident that the whole of the skirting board was not rotten and it addressed his repair requests, it was appropriate that it considered the resident’s dissatisfaction about the number of repair visits since moving in.
It agreed that some repairs were “jobbing carry-overs” from its void repair works. It acknowledged the volume of repairs raised since he moved into the property and the impact he experienced as a result. It apologised for any inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment and loss of confidence in its service. It offered £250 as a gesture of good will.
In this case, the landlord responded in line with its complaint handling policy time frames. It was appropriate that it reacted to the repair concerns of the resident and took action where necessary. Furthermore, it demonstrated a willingness to reroute an existing condensate pipe to accommodate the resident’s cooker. It reassured him the property was secure and ensured it was part of the window and door planned works This was reasonable in the circumstances.
However, the landlord did consider the number of appointments required to give the resident the resolution that he wanted. It offered him £250 compensation which he accepted. The Ombudsman considers the compensation offered in response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of property B when he moved in to be fair and proportionate in the circumstances. It is therefore the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s decision to recharge the resident for repairs upon termination of his tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of property B when he moved in.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord should reoffer the £250 compensation from its stage 2 response if it has not already paid this.