Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Moat Homes Limited (202104430)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104430

Moat Homes Limited

6 October 2021


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The amount that the landlord charged the resident for cyclical painting and decoration to the communal areas of his building.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the standard of the cyclical painting and decoration to his building’s communal areas.
    3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damage to clothing and possessions due to lack of signage at his building while the cyclical painting was taking place there.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The amount that the landlord charged the resident for cyclical painting and decoration to the communal areas of his building.
  3. Paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the cost of cyclical works to paint and redecorate his building charged by the landlord. However, his lease agreement with it confirms that he is obliged to pay towards its reasonably incurred expenditure in repairing and maintaining the building through his service charge. As complaints that relate to the level, increase, reasonableness, or liability to pay service charges are not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to consider, under paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme above, a determination will not be made on this aspect of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a shared-ownership leaseholder of the property. The property is a flat within a building (the block).
  2. The landlord issued a Section 20 Notice of Intention to carry out works under a long-term agreement under Schedule 3 of the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 to the residents of the block on 15 July 2020. This confirmed that it would be carrying out redecoration to the communal areas of the block.
  3. The resident made a stage one complaint to the landlord on 5 October 2020, in which he highlighted that it was “charging [him] a lot for the work”, and he relayed that the operative who had carried out the above decorative work at the block was not being productive and “smoked a lot”. He expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of the paintwork and that paint had dripped onto the carpets. The resident added that the operative was also absent from the site for four days.
  4. The resident contended that the landlord had overcharged him for works, which he had not wanted, in order to “generate funds” for itself. It acknowledged the complaint at stage one of its complaints procedure on the following day, on which it left a voicemail message for him asking him for a call back, and it advised him that it would respond to the complaint by email by 27 October 2020.
  5. The landlord initially responded to the resident’s complaint on 28 October 2020, when it said that it had been unsuccessful in contacting him by telephone to discuss his complaint. In response to his concerns about the cost of the redecorating works, it explained that the rates for this were independently drawn up by a consultant and put out to tender, and that the contractor had successfully won the contract. The landlord assured the resident that the works were carried out in line with its contractual obligation to maintain the property.
  6. The landlord noted the resident’s concerns about the operative being unproductive and explained that they were paid for the work completed and not by day rates. It, however, acknowledged that it was unprofessional for the operative to be smoking while on site and it advised that it would ask its contractor to investigate this and the reported four-day absence from the site. The landlord confirmed that all work had been signed off, therefore if any issues remained it would ask the contractor to return to address these. It advised that it was happy to meet the resident on site to address any of his concerns and said that, if he did not respond within one calendar month, it would close the complaint.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord later on 28 October 2020 and both parties arranged to meet on 9 November 2020 to inspect the block.
  8. On 22 November 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it had instructed its contractor to return to address the snagging works which it found on its visit on 13 November 2020. It asked him if he was happy to close the complaint now or if he preferred to await the completion of the snagging works first. The resident confirmed to the landlord on the following day that he wished to keep his complaint open.
  9. The landlord informed the resident on 8 December 2020 that its contractor had confirmed that the snagging works had been completed on 3 December 2020, and so it asked him if he was now happy to close his complaint. He replied later on that day to advise that the defects had not been resolved and that he would provide pictures to illustrate this.
  10. The resident emailed the landlord on 13 December 2020 to report that “many” of the defects found on its inspection on 13 November 2020 had not been addressed. He requested that it escalate his complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure.
  11. The landlord replied to the resident on 16 December 2020 to advise that it would be carrying a joint inspection of the site in January 2021 with the contractor present to carry out the works while it was on site. It said that there needed to be a reason to escalate the complaint to the next stage and it highlighted that the works were “minor works, which should only take a few hours to correct”. The landlord said that it could escalate the complaint to the final stage once it had exhausted all avenues to resolve the complaint at stage one.
  12. The landlord’s stage one complaint investigation notes recorded that the snagging works were completed with some delay due to the impact of the corona virus pandemic, and that the works were inspected on 29 January 2021. 
  13. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 24 February 2021. In this, it confirmed that it had carried out an inspection of the redecorating works on 29 January 2021 and identified further snags which required addressing. After the contractor attended to these, it inspected the works again on 15 February 2021 which it found to be satisfactory. The landlord noted that some damage had been caused by residents and it felt that it was unfair to ask the contractor to return to make good damage that had been caused after they had completed the work. It fully upheld the complaint in light of the repeated visits needed to complete the work and the time taken to do so.
  14. Later on 24 February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to express his dissatisfaction with the standard of works initially carried out by the contractor, highlighting that “50 errors” were identified in the inspection on 13 November 2020. He noted that contractor had returned twice to carry out snagging works and on the last occasion, due to a lack of signage, he and his wife had sustained damage to their clothes from paint. The resident held that the work was “a shambles from the start to the finish” and that he had been charged “excessively” for the work. He added that the cyclical works should have been carried out in the summer so that the paint would have dried sooner.
  15. The landlord responded to the resident on 2 March 2021 to request photographs of the paint damage to his and his wife’s clothes and a “short statement” that it could present to the contractor.
  16. The resident escalated his complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 10 March 2021. He repeated his dissatisfaction with the standard of work and the behaviour of the contractor’s operative. The resident contended that the landlord had not managed the snagging works effectively, as it had attached sticky notes to mark the areas requiring work but had not notified other residents about this, leading to some notes being removed before the contractor attended. He repeated that the contractor had not used adequate signage when painting during the last visit which led to him and his wife getting pain on their clothes and possessions. To resolve the complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to make an adjustment to the bill for the works and to provide compensation for the damage sustained to his clothing and possessions.
  17. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 26 March 2021. It confirmed that his report of the contractor’s operative being unproductive and smoking was investigated and denied by the contractor, and it reasoned that, had this been the case, the contractor would have been “making no money” as they were paid on a schedule of rates and not “day work”. The landlord said that the absence of the operative from the site for four days was not a concern and it explained that this could have been an occasional occurrence due to ill health or transport issues.
  18. The landlord acknowledged that two further visits were required before the decorative works were completed, but it confirmed these were now of “an acceptable standard” and had been completed at the contractor’s cost. It reasoned that it was not practical to expect painting works to be confined to summer months. The landlord confirmed that it did not profit from the works and that any money that it had made was reinvested in its housing stock. It confirmed, then it would not reduce the bill for the works, given that they were now completed to an acceptable standard at the contractor’s expense.
  19. The landlord relayed that the contractor had said that they had put up signage when carrying out the painting. It noted that it had not received other reports of this being an issue, but it asked the resident to provide a cost for cleaning the damaged clothing and possessions, so that it could approach the contractor for reimbursement.
  20. On 25 May 2021, the resident confirmed to this Service that he continued to be dissatisfied with the standard of the cyclical decoration works, the cost of the works and the damage to his and his wife’s possessions from a lack of signage during the painting.

Assessment and findings

Agreement, policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s lease agreement with the resident confirms that is obliged to repair, redecorate and renew the exterior of the block and the common parts there.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure. At the first stage of its complaints procedure, it is to contact the resident within three days of receipt of the complaint and agree a date for resolution, which should be within 28 calendar days of receipt of the complaint. At the final stage of its complaints procedure, the landlord should provide a response to the complaint within 21 calendar days.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy provides for payments of compensation where damage has been caused to a resident’s property. This policy confirms that it does not pay compensation for short–term nuisance cause by building works, nor “stress following any… failure of service”.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the standard of the cyclical painting and decoration to his building’s communal areas

  1. As confirmed by the lease agreement above, the landlord was responsible to keep the block in decorative repair. When a landlord receives a report of a repair its first action should be to inspect the issue. On receipt of the resident’s stage one complaint on 5 October 2020, it duly arranged to meet him and it carried out an inspection of the block and the areas of dissatisfaction that he had reported. There was an interval of 23 calendar days between him making the complaint and it emailing him on 28 October 2020 to offer an inspection of the block. Given that there was no dispute that the landlord had attempted to contact the resident unsuccessfully via telephone prior to this, as it had suggested, this was a reasonable interval.
  2. Following the landlord’s inspection of the block on 13 November 2020, it recalled the contractor to complete the snagging works that it had found there, which they did on 3 December 2020. In response to the resident’s report on 8 December 2020 that the snagging work was incomplete, it inspected the block once more on 29 January 2021, recalled the contractor again, and further inspected the work on 15 February 2021.
  3. There was an interval of 52 calendar days between the resident reporting the incomplete snagging work on 8 December 2020 and the landlord’s subsequent inspection of this on 29 January 2021. However, given the impact of the corona virus pandemic, the seasonal period, and the fact that the works were decorative works which were not reported to be a risk to health and safety but were found by it to have been “minor” snagging, this timeframe was not too excessive.
  4. The landlord inspected the decorative works at the block on the above three occasions and it found the work to be satisfactory on its final inspection on 15 February 2021. As it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the opinions of its suitably qualified staff, it was reasonable for it to conclude that the work was completed adequately. The landlord, therefore, responded reasonably to the resident’s report of the standard of decorative communal works by carrying out multiple inspections and ensuring that the works were completed to a satisfactory standard. As a result there was no evidence of a failure on its part in respect of this.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damage to clothing and possessions due to lack of signage at his building while the cyclical painting was taking place there

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy above provides for the payment of compensation for any damage it caused to a resident’s property. It is noted that on two occasions, on 3 and 26 March 2021, it requested evidence of the damage that the resident reported to his clothes and possessions from him in order to enable it to consider compensation for him for these items. There was no evidence, however, that this was provided to the landlord.
  2. It was reasonable for the landlord to request evidence of this damage before paying any compensation and there was no evidence that it declined unreasonably to compensate the resident for any damage incurred. Therefore, there was no evidence of a failure on its part in its response to his reports of damage.
  3. The landlord instead offered, in its final stage complaint response to the resident of 26 March 2021, to approach the contractor for reimbursement for the damage that he had reported to it, if he provided it with a cost for cleaning the damaged clothing and possessions. As there is no evidence that he did so, it was appropriate that it did not compensate him for these items in the absence of evidence of the damage.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in:
    1. Its response to the resident’s reports about the standard of the cyclical painting and decoration to his building’s communal areas.
    2. Its response to the resident’s report of damage to clothing and possessions due to lack of signage at his building while the cyclical painting was taking place there

Reasons

  1. The landlord took reasonable steps to assess the standard of the decorative work reported by the resident by repeatedly inspecting this within a reasonable timescale, and it arranged for the work to be completed to a satisfactory standard following its inspections.
  2. The landlord reasonably asked the resident for evidence of the damage caused by the decorative work to assess the payment of compensation to him for this, and it was appropriate that it did not do so as there is no evidence that it received this. 

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord liaise again with the resident to request evidence of the reported damage to his clothing and possessions so that it may consider paying him compensation for this.
  2. The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendation.
  3. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.