Midland Heart Limited (202111694)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111694

Midland Heart Limited

30 April 2023

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 handling of the repairs to the resident’s external doors and roof.

Background and summary of events

Policy Context

In the landlord’s complaints comment and compliments policy, the landlord sets out its approach to compensation. Financial compensation is a “final option” for the landlord and is only considered when warranted by the level of loss or suffering, or if a resident has experienced significant inconvenience.

Summary

The resident has held a secure tenancy with the landlord for his 3-bedroom house, since 10 March 1986.
In 2016 the landlord inspected the property to assess the doors; a report, confirmed that they were in poor condition and required replacement, his property was placed on the annual door replacement programme for 2016/17. The resident was visited by a specialist window and door company that would be completing the work, but the work did not progress.
In June 2020, the resident reported that the roof leaked when it rained. On 23 June 2020, the landlord raised a repair for the roof. This was later cancelled because the contractor reported that it was unable to gain access to the resident’s home on three occasions.
The same repair was re-raised on 21 July 2020, the contractor repaired the flashing on the roof on 29 August 2020
On 17 September 2020, the resident raised a repair with the landlord for the backdoor to be fixed, it had become stiff and difficult to open. The repair was completed on 8 October 2020. The resident also reminded the landlord, that he was advised new replacement doors would be provided in 2016. On investigation, the landlord found that its repairs system, had logged that the resident’s doors were replaced in 2017 and not due any further replacement until 2044.
The resident advised that this was incorrect new doors had not been fitted. The landlord informed the regional surveyor of the error and advised him to replace the doors. This was not progressed by the landlord.
On 3 September 2020, the landlord’s contractor attended to assess the plaster work needed between the kitchen and bathroom. On 26 October 2020, the plasterer attended to do the plastering work but was unable to complete it as the roof was still leaking. The landlord raised another order the same day for the roof to be repaired.
The job was then closed again on 4 December 2020, by the landlord following the contractor reporting no access multiple times.
On 14 December 2020, the resident contacted the roofing company to chase the roof repair, he was told they had not been able to gain access, the resident said he was unaware of any previous appointments. On 16 December 2020 he arranged a new appointment through the landlord. The landlords’ records show that it was completed on 13 January 2021.
On 11 January 2021, the residents asked his welfare advisor from the Adult Support Hub, to assist him in getting the landlord to complete the repairs, the welfare advisor provided the landlord with the details.
On 13 April 2021, the resident made a formal complaint. He said he had been waiting for new external doors since 2016, the condition of his doors had not been taken seriously, he was having to live with flooding in the bathroom and from the external doors. As an outcome he requested compensation for damage to his belongings, living uncomfortably with condensation and drafts. He also wanted to be offered “an encouragement to move,” package and an offer to downsize.
On 30 April 2021, the landlord provided its stage one response, in summary it said:
1. They had no record of door replacement work being planned in 2016 but accepted that the paperwork provided by the resident confirmed that there was.
2. It confirmed the resident’s external door replacement had been added to the 2020/21 programme and a survey would be completed by the contractor shortly, and then 6-8 weeks after the doors wood be installed as they were made to order.
3. Internal doors are the resident’s responsibility under the terms of the tenancy agreement.
4. A roof repair was raised on 23 June 2020, but cancelled shortly after as access could not be gained three times. It was raised again 21 July 2021 and completed on 29 August 2020.
5. On 26 October 2020 plasterers attended to make good but the roof was still leaking so they could not carry out the work. Another repair was raised for the roofers to attend but this was cancelled on 3 December 2020 as they had been unable to obtain access.
6. An appointment for a damp and mould inspection had been arranged for 14 May 2021 and an assessment of the plasterwork needed, as it had not previously been completed due to the roof still leaking.
7. The offer of an encouragement to downsize was a scheme the landlord ran to accommodate people affected by the bedroom tax from 2013. This scheme ran for seven years but was no longer available. It advised the choice based letting scheme now gave preference to under-occupying social housing tenants, which would give the resident some priority if he applied.
8. It also advised that even though the resident was £25,000 in arrears due to a housing benefit overpayment, he would still be eligible because he meets the criteria that ‘the property is not affordable’. It encouraged him to register for a transfer.
9. It partially upheld the complaint for the delay in replacing the doors and the associated plaster work. It would not uphold any damage occurring due to the roof leak as the contractor attended several times but was unable to gain access.
10. It agreed to assess compensation and the impact this had, had on the resident once the outstanding work had been completed.
On 7 May 2021, the resident escalated his complaint, he was not happy with the landlord’s response. His key reasons summarised were:
1. that a conclusion could not be reached when the doors had still not been replaced. This was despite reporting them on four occasions between June 2020 and January 2021, which was in addition to being reported by the planned maintenance external painting programme manager as the doors could not be painted on the programme in July 2020.
2. He provided several reasons why the landlord should have his door replacement recorded back to 2004 on the records.
3. He questioned the non-access for the roofer, quoting dates he had, had appointments for 21 July 2020, the roofer arrived a day earlier at 11.53am and on 26 November 2020 the appointment was for 9-11am and they arrived at 14.43pm. He had not been aware of other dates.
4. With regard to downsizing, he said it had also previously been agreed by the landlord prior to 12 June 2020, that he would be made a direct offer of a one-bedroom flat, he now believes that did not go ahead because of his rent account. He will need assistance to move to avoid debt.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation of the resident’s complaint on 13 May 2021 and advised that a response would be provided in 20 working days, by 7 June 2021.
On 14 May 2021, a further inspection of the doors was completed by the landlord. Its records still showed the back door had been replaced by a UPVC door in 2009 but it confirmed it was timber, in “awful condition” and un-economical to repair. The landlords’ photographs taken at the inspection show both doors had perished, and wood was rotting particularly at the bottom, where paint and varnish had broken down and water was penetrating.
On 28 May 2021, the landlord reported that the resident had refused to let the door company measure the doors as they had already been measured by another company and he had chosen the doors he wanted. On the same day the landlord sent an internal email, that stated, the previous order had to be cancelled as this was a conservation area and composite doors did not meet planning regulations.
The landlord completed its investigation of the complaint and provided its stage two response on 11 June 21. In summary the landlord’s response said:
1. That it acknowledged that the resident had reported his concerns regarding the external doors on numerous occasions since 2016, without resolution. It apologised for the experience and gave assurances the investigator would oversee the repairs to completion.
2. The doors still needed to be measured as the contractor had changed, the resident lived in a conservation area where composite doors could not be fitted due to planning regulations and the style had to comply with the area. A catalogue would be sent, to assist him to choose a new backdoor.
3. With regard to the roof repairs, and not gaining access, it accepted that it could not evidence that these appointments were made with the resident. It acknowledged that the repair completed in August 2020 had not resolved the issue and further work had been completed on 13 January 2021. Whilst no further leaks had been reported, it had since made the decision to replace the whole roof and the investigator would oversee the work to completion.
4. His concerns about downsizing have been discussed with the landlord’s customer experience manager, who had confirmed the house was not affordable for the resident. Records show the resident was offered a smaller property in 2020, but declined it because it was in a different area. It had been agreed with the lettings team to make the resident one further offer of accommodation in the same area that he lived. The resident was advised to register to speed things up.
5. It upheld the complaint and offered financial redress which included, replacing all the internal doors (which are the tenant’s responsibility) as a gesture of goodwill. For the external doors’ delays, for every year that the doors were not replaced £100.00 = £500.00 and inconvenience £100.00. For the roof leak, delays in carrying out the repair at £1.00 per day (204 days) £204.00 plus Inconvenience £100.00, making a total of £904.00.
6. For the claim for damage to the residents’ belongings, in the first instance the landlord asks customers to make a claim on their own contents insurance. It considered the items the resident said were damaged in the property, but as he was unable to provide receipts and determine the age and value of the items, it was only willing to contribute £250.00 which brought the total offer to £1154.00 compensation.

Post Complaint information

On 17 June 2021, the landlords’ records note that, the external doors had been measured that day and the style of the backdoor chosen by the resident.
On 23 June 2021, a landlord’s internal email confirmed that the roof work had been completed. An order for the structural repair to the floor and the plastering had been raised with the same contractor, an appointment had been arranged with resident for 9am on 29 June 2021.
The contractor attended on 29 June 2021 and reported to the landlord that the floor had dropped in the front room, because there was rising damp and other problems present, but the resident was not keen to have the work done as he was moving out in September.
14 July 2021, the contractor emailed the resident to arrange the internal door replacement work, and agreed appointments for 16/07/2021 and 19/07/2021.
On 1 September 2021, an email was sent from the landlord to the resident to arrange the fitting of the new internal doors.

Assessment and findings

Scope

In the resident’s complaint to this service, he has raised the issue of ‘inaccurate information being placed on his rent account’. This issue became known after the landlord’s complaint process had been completed; the Ombudsman does not consider complaints which have not been through the landlord’s complaints process, so this issue will not form part of the investigation. The resident has been advised by this service that he can raise a new complaint with the landlord on this matter if he wishes to do so.

Assessment

The resident told this service he was not satisfied with the outcome of the landlord’s investigation, because although the landlord had acknowledged service failings in the handling of the repairs, he did not feel it had adequately addressed the damage to his belongings in its compensation offer.
When the resident reported on 23 June 2020, that the roof was leaking, the landlord appropriately raised an order for roofers to attend. When the roofing contractor said it could not gain access to the resident’s property after three attempts the landlord closed the job. This was because the contractor said the resident had failed to attend for pre-booked appointments. The landlord re-ordered the work on 21 July 2020, and overall it was completed by the landlord within a reasonable timeframe at the end of August 2020.
When it transpired the repair in August had not fixed the roof leak and the property was still wet, the landlord appropriately called the roofing contractor to re-attend. However on 3 December 2020, the contractor reported that they had not been able to gain access on three occasions again, so the landlord cancelled the job. The resident chased the roofing contractor on 14 December 2020, and was confused to find that the job had been cancelled for no access, as he said he did not know of any arranged appointments.
This was the second time the contractor had said this was the situation, with the resident stating he was unaware of any appointments. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated what had occurred to ensure the contractor could evidence its attendance this time. In the later complaint investigation, the landlord was unable to evidence that any of the failed appointments had been arranged with the resident. It was therefore not appropriate for the landlord to have cancelled either of the roofing jobs.
The repair was completed on 13 January 2021, but was described by the landlord as a temporary repair in the stage one complaint response. If it leaked again the contractor had said the whole roof would need replacing. A repair can only be described as temporary if there is an actual plan for a follow-up permanent solution. In this instance there was not, although this repair held out, the landlord put the resident at risk of further leaks, which was not reasonable.
In its stage two response 11 June 2021, the landlord fairly acknowledged the service failings with the roof repair, and apologised to the resident. It made the decision that the roof needed to be renewed, and the investigator would oversee this to completion. This was a reasonable proposal for resolution.
The landlord also included an offer of financial redress in its complaint response, £204.00 for the delay in carrying out the repair to the roof and £100.00 for the resident’s inconvenience which was reasonable.
When the resident reported his back door had broken on 17 September 2020, the landlord sent out a contractor to repair it on 8 October 2020, which was reasonable and within the landlord’s timescale for a routine repair.
When the resident brought to the landlord’s attention, the fact that he had been waiting since 2016 for the back and front door to be replaced, the landlord looked into the matter. It found there was misinformation on its reporting system, which stated the door had been replaced with a UPVC one. The landlord apologised, and on realising its error, advised that the property would be added to its door replacement programme. Even though this was the resolution to an accepted mistake, this was never actioned by the landlord, so the work still did not progress, which was not acceptable.
When the resident made his complaint in April 2021 because both the front and back doors had not been replaced and were now letting in water, the landlord responded, saying that it had no record of the doors being included on the replacement programme in 2016. As the resident had his original paperwork as proof, the landlord apologised and agreed for both doors to be put on the 2020/21 replacement programme. It was not appropriate that the landlord had to rely on the resident’s paperwork, regarding its own replacement programme; particularly given the other error which indicated that the door had been replaced, these are record keeping failures in the organisation.
The landlord said in its stage one response that a damp and mould (D&M) inspection had been booked for 14 May 2021, however, there has been no evidence provided to this service to confirm that it went ahead. We have not had sight of a D&M report or seen any follow up works requested. This was not appropriate, when the repairs were eventually carried out on 29 June 2021, the contractor reported that the property also had significant rising damp, which had caused the substructure of the floor to collapse. It is not evident whether this was picked up in the damp and mould inspection or if not why it was not identified at an earlier stage.
The doors were eventually re-inspected on 14 May 2021, following the stage one complaint outcome, at this inspection the records for the contractor still showed that the resident’s front door was UPVC, as they had not been updated. They were however wooden and in extremely poor condition, so measurements and the resident’s choice of design were taken for new composite doors to be made, which was appropriate.
There was a further delay as the landlord had not identified that the resident’s property was in a conservation area. This meant that composite doors could not be fitted to the property as it would be in breach of planning regulations. The resident’s time had been wasted providing access for measuring and choosing new styles of a composite door. This was not acceptable, this is another failing in the landlord’s record keeping.
In its stage two response the landlord fairly acknowledged its service failings in its handling of the replacement doors and agreed the delay was unacceptable. It appropriately apologised to the resident, made arrangements for new wooden doors to be measured and ordered, with agreed oversight by the investigating officer, until completion. The landlord also offered financial redress for the delay in replacing the doors at £100.00 for each year delayed, from 2016 and an additional £100.00 for the inconvenience to the resident, a total of £600.00 which was a reasonable offer.
The resident requested compensation from the landlord, for damage to his belongings. It is usually a requirement for tenants to insure their own household contents against any theft or damage, so it was not unreasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to his insurance, in the first instance. Even though this is usual practice, the landlord acted reasonably as it was prepared to consider the resident’s request. In order to complete the assessment, the landlord required receipts or evidence of the damaged goods to determine age and value, which the resident was not able to provide. It was therefore, not unreasonable in this situation for the landlord to decline the request. However, it still acted fairly, in offering the resident a goodwill contribution of £250.00. This was in addition to a goodwill gesture offered to replace all the resident’s internal doors, at cost to the landlord, which would usually be the residents responsibility.
The resident had also requested that as an outcome to his complaint, that he received “an encouragement to move” so he could downsize to a smaller property. This scheme was provided by the landlord for seven years from 2013. As the scheme is no longer available it would not be reasonable to expect the landlord to be able to assist the resident with this request.
The landlord has, however made arrangements with the lettings team to assist the resident with a direct offer of a smaller accommodation in the location of his choice. The resident has arrears on his account, accrued through a housing benefit overpayment, for many housing providers this would be a barrier to resident’s moving. The landlord’s policy however, appropriately recognises that arrears can be an indicator of accommodation being unaffordable and has a process to enable residents to move to a property that is more within their means.
The landlord has not however, demonstrated that it has learned any lessons from the failings in this case or made any service adjustments that would prevent these service failings happening again.

Determination (decision)

44. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s external doors and roof.

Reasons

45. Whilst there were significant failings in the landlords handling of both of the resident’s repair issues (external doors and roof). The landlord fully accepted its failings in its review of the resident’s complaint and apologised. It made every effort to get both repairs back on track and they were successfully completed and in a reasonable time. Its offer of £1154.00 compensation was calculated clearly and fairly in line with its compensation matrix, and was reasonable in the absence of any tangible evidence to support the age and value of belongings said to be damaged. It paid this alongside an agreement to replace all the resident’s internal doors at no cost to the resident.

Recommendations

46. It is recommended that, if it has not done so already, the landlord pay the £1154.00 compensation offered in its stage two response.

47. It is recommended that the landlord review this case to see where lessons can be learnt, to improve its service generally and prevent the service failings identified from happening again, particularly in relation to the landlord’s own record keeping.