Midland Heart Limited (202003239)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003239

Midland Heart Limited

17 May 2021 [amended 9 August 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 the condition of the property following works to demolish the garage, in particular, exposed wiring and debris being left and the landlord’s response to this.
2. The complaint is also about the landlord’s handling of a leak in the bathroom.

Background and summary of events

Background and Policies

3. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 4 May 2008.
4. Attached to the property was a garage which had been built by the previous tenant, without permission. The landlord states that the garage was erected by a former tenant and ‘gifted’ to the resident at the beginning of the tenancy, although the forms passing responsibility for the garage to the resident were not signed or dated by either party. The resident built a pond in her garden, connecting the electrics for it to the garage.
5. The landlord’s published repairs timescales include a target timeframe of carrying out non-urgent repairs within 28 days.  An emergency repair will be carried out within 24 hours.
6. The landlord has a two-stage formal complaints procedure whereby it aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage one and 20 working days at stage two.  Where these timescales are not possible, this will be communicated to the complainant.
7. The same policy states that complaints will only be escalated to stage two where it has not followed its complaints procedure or where there are elements of the complaint that have not been addressed.

Summary of events

8. In May 2020 the landlord demolished the garage deeming it to be unsafe.  The landlord left the electrical cables from the garage in place, however, due to them serving a fishpond.
9. Following the demolition, the resident was concerned about the exposed electrical wires running to her pond, as well as being dissatisfied with debris left in the garden.  She contacted the landlord about this “on a number of occasions”, although no evidence has been provided documenting the frequency and nature of contact. 
10. From 3 June 2020, the resident also reported numerous leaks from the bath, although again, no records of this have been provided.
11. On 19 June 2020 in a telephone conversation with the landlord, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with its handling of the reported leak, including missed appointments.  In recognition of this the landlord offered the resident £40 compensation.
12. On an unknown date the landlord repaired the leak to the bath waste pipe.
13. On 6 July 2020 the resident reported a leak from the shower and the landlord attended and inspected the same day. Works were then arranged to re-grout the tiles and to seal the bath and these were completed on 15 July 2020.
14. In response to the resident’s concerns about the exposed wiring and condition of the garden, the landlord visited the property to carry out an inspection on 20 July 2020, which was moved from 17 July 2020 as the landlord was unable to make the appointment.
15. At the appointment, it was agreed by the landlord that the electrical wire would be attached to the fence, that the breeze blocks and rubble that had been left in the resident’s garden following the demolition of the garage, would be removed and that an area to the side of the garden would be slabbed.
16. On 22 July 2020, the landlord spoke to the resident about her dissatisfaction in a telephone call, following which it sent a formal response at stage one of its complaints procedure on 30 July 2020.  Regarding the complaint about the demolition of the garage, the landlord apologised for the delay in attending to inspect and also for the delay in carrying out the agreed works, which it confirmed were due to take place in the week commencing 3 August 2020.
17. In terms of the shower leak, it advised that it had attempted to contact the resident that day to check that the works to rectify this had been successful but was unable to reach her.  It advised that it had raised works to stain block the kitchen, which was stained following the leak.
18. Shortly thereafter, the resident requested escalation of her complaint.
19. On 4 August 2020 the resident confirmed to the landlord that there were no further leaks.
20. On 1 September 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident, declining her request for the complaint to be escalated, explaining that the outcome would not change.
21. It let the resident know that it had discussed the issues with various members of staff and that it was always working to improve its services and apologised for the experience the resident had had and reiterated its offer of £40 compensation, advising how to claim this.

Post complaint

22. On 2 September 2020 works to stain block to the kitchen were carried out. There is no information as to if or when the landlord attended the property to carry out the works agreed, and this is not specifically addressed in its complaints response.

Assessment and findings

Garage and Garden

23. The landlord has accepted that it delayed in attending the property to carry out an inspection, following the resident’s concerns about the wiring and the state of the garden. It is not known by how long the delay was or reasons for it, nor is there information as to on how many occasions the resident contacted the landlord to express her concerns.  Notwithstanding this, the landlord acknowledges that there was a service failure in this regard, with it not attending or scheduling the works within a reasonable period.
24. Having demolished the garage, the landlord was required to ensure the area was safe and clear or debris. Although the wiring was exposed following demolition of the garage, there is no evidence that the landlord left the wiring unsafe, with risk of electric shock and following the inspection on 20 July 2020, safety issues were not identified, but rather, it was agreed that the landlord would pin the wire to the fence as a gesture of goodwill. This was therefore reasonable.  The landlord was not required to re-house the wiring or to make it more aesthetically pleasing; to do so would amount to an improvement rather than repair and improvements are not the responsibility of the landlord. 
25. In terms of the rubble, the landlord appears to have accepted at the 20 July 2020 visit that debris was left and agreed to clear this as well as slab an area of the garden and although these works were scheduled for the week commencing 3 August 2020, there is no information as to if or when this was carried out.  Irrespective, the landlord acknowledges a delay.
26. In her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident reported that there was evidence of subsidence where the garage previously stood. This matter did not form part of the complaint made to the landlord, nor is there any evidence that it was reported to the landlord prior to this point. However, the landlord may wish to inspect and determine whether there is any risk of subsidence at the property.

Leaks

27. Once on notice, the landlord was required to carry out the repairs it was responsible for, in accordance with the terms of the tenancy and in its obligations in law, within a reasonable period.  The law does not specify what a reasonable period is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.  In this case, the resident reported leaks to her bath and shower at different times, which depending on the severity of the leaks, may have constituted emergency or non-urgent repairs.
28. In terms of the bath, the landlord has accepted that this was reported on multiple occasions although again, there is no information as to on how many occasions this was.  The landlord has also acknowledged missed appointments in respect of this and offered £40 compensation. 
29. Although appropriate to have acknowledged a service failure and offered compensation in respect of this, the £40 offered is not proportionate the failure, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s published ‘Guidance on Remedies’; there was more than one missed appointment and more than one report of a leak and in view of this, £40 does not sufficiently recognise the impact, specifically, the stress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, nor her time and trouble.
30. Turning to the shower leak, the landlord deemed this as an emergency, attending within 24 hours in accordance with its target timeframes.  Having established the problem, scheduled works to remedy this and these were completed within a reasonable period in accordance with the landlord’s target timeframe, as was the kitchen stain block.
31. A report is not the same as a complaint and the landlord appears to have responded to the complaint broadly within its target timeframes; in the absence of precise dates, it is impossible to tell.  However, the Ombudsman determines, on the information available, that the responses were reasonably timed and that the landlord was entitled to decline the request for escalation to stage two of its complaints procedure because the ability to do so is set out in its complaints policy and guidance. 
32. Where no new information is provided and a complainant simply wishes for their voice to be heard or they are dissatisfied with the outcome but has not articulated new reasons or additional information to support escalation, a landlord is not necessarily obliged to escalate a matter.  This is not to say, however, that the outcome at stage one was sufficiently responded to; the Ombudsman finds that the compensation offered was not proportionate, as earlier explained.

Determination (decision)

33. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord, in respect of the complaint about the demolition of the garage. 
34. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint about its handling of the leak to the bath but not to the leak in the shower.

Reasons

35. There was service failure in respect of the garage demolition because although the landlord was not required to make improvements or changes to the wiring and only to make it safe, which it did do, the landlord took too long to respond to the resident’s concerns, to inspect the property and to carry out the works it agreed to do.
36. There was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the bath leak because it delayed in responding to the resident’s reports of a leak, missed appointments, and delayed in carrying out the repair. There is no service failure in respect of the leak to the shower because the landlord attended and carried out repairs to this within a reasonable period.

Orders

37. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation, comprised of:
    1. £75 for the service failure found in respect of the issues following the demolition of the garage; and
    2. £75 for the service failure in respect of its handling of the bath leak.
38. Note: The compensation amount is the total amount and not in addition to the £40 already offered.
39. If not already done so, the landlord to carry out the works it agreed to do, namely:
    1. Attach the wire to the fence,
    2. Remove the breeze blocks and rubble, and
    3. Slab the area identified.

Recommendation

40. It is recommended that the landlord inspect the property to determine whether the property is subsiding as the resident suggests.