Newlon Housing Trust (202009747)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009747

Newlon Housing Trust

23 April 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

The complaint concerns the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to the fitted wardrobe in the property.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat on the second floor in a communal building.
The resident had experienced an ongoing issue with repairs he requested to the sliding doors of a fitted wardrobe in the property. The landlord’s records state that the resident first informed it of the issue on 21 September 2017 by sending photographs. The landlord’s records further note that it had informed the resident that repairs to the wardrobe were his responsibility and that this was disputed by the resident who requested to talk with a senior manager. However, no formal complaint was logged by the landlord at this time.
In April 2018 the landlord agreed to a one-off repair of the wardrobe as a goodwill gesture. The landlord’s contractor then corresponded with resident to agree an appointment date.
On 5 May 2018 the contractor informed the landlord that the runner for the door was missing and as a spare runner was not available; it therefore advised that the door should be replaced. On 25 May 2018 the contractor advised the landlord that it may be possible to install a new sliding door mechanism to resolve the issue. An appointment was booked for 6 July 2018 with follow-on work arranged for 28 August 2018.
On 9 September 2018 the resident wrote to the landlord and expressed his frustration that the issue had yet to be resolved. He noted that four people had attended the property without the repairs being completed and that he had to take time of work to be available for the appointments.
The landlord replied to the resident on 14 September 2018. It explained that it had been in contact with the contractor who had stated that during the appointment on 28 August 2018 they were informed by the resident that he had made alternative arrangements for the work to the wardrobe to be completed. The landlord also stated that it would not yet open a formal complaint into the matter but would investigate with the contractor as to why the job was not completed.
The landlord wrote again on 18 September 2018 and confirmed that the repair did not go ahead as the contractor did not take any measurements of the wardrobe after being informed by the resident that somebody else was undertaking the repair. The landlord enquired if the resident still required the contractor to undertake the work or if he had made his own arrangements.
The resident replied on 20 September 018. He explained that he had informed the operative who attended on 28 August 2018 that the measurements had already been taken by someone else, which seemed to have been what caused the confusion. He confirmed that he would like the repair completed by the contractor and was content for the landlord not to open a formal complaint at this stage.
The contractor and resident agreed to an appointment on 21 November 2018. Following the appointment, the resident called the landlord on 7 December 2018 and asked for an update. The landlord’s records of the call state that it informed the resident that the contractor was currently trying to source a part for the wardrobe to complete the repair, but, as it was not a standard part, this had caused a delay.
On 4 March 2019 the contractor informed the landlord that it had been unable to source a replacement part for the wardrobe. The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 March 2019 and requested an update. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 18 March 2019 and replied on 27 March 2019. It informed him that the contractor had been able to source a replacement part and was therefore unable to complete repairs to the wardrobe doors.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 April 2019 and requested that it replace the sliding doors on the wardrobe. The landlord replied on 23 April 2019 and informed the resident that while it would be willing to remove the doors from the wardrobe, the replacement of the doors would be the resident’s responsibility. It also noted that it had originally agreed to repair the doors as a goodwill gesture.
On 7 May 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord and disputed its position, noting that the wardrobe was part of the property. The landlord replied on 9 May 2019 and explained that internal repairs were the responsibility of the resident, but that it would contact the contractor and request more information about the replacement part required.
On 20 May 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord and suggested a resolution to the matter, stating that he would be willing to buy replacement doors for the wardrobe if the landlord agreed to fit them.
On 23 May 2019 the landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident. It informed him that it had been unable to source the replacement part and was therefore unable to pursue the repair of the wardrobe any further.
The landlord then addressed the resident’s offer of installing new doors that he would purchase. It informed him that this had been declined on the grounds that “any maintenance of the wardrobe is solely your responsibility, we were only willing to assist to repair the sliding doors as a good will gesture and as a one off agreed at the time by the Head of Repairs. We never agreed to replace the sliding doors”.
The landlord concluded the response by offering the resident £30 compensation as a goodwill gesture, stating that this amount reflects the usual labour costs that it would be charged by the contractor to replace sliding doors.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 May 2019 and disputed its response. He noted that the wardrobe was part of the property when he moved into it in 2003 and that he had been attempting to have the repair completed for over two years.
The resident called the landlord on 4 June 2019 and requested to escalate the complaint to stage two. The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 June 2019 and confirmed that the complaint had been escalated.
In July 2019, the landlord, resident, and contractor corresponded about what further options were left for the wardrobe. On 15 July 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed that it had been agreed that it would dismantle the wardrobe and make good the holes in the wall, which would be left by the wardrobe’s removal, however, it affirmed that it would not undertake any decoration works.
An appointment was made for 2 August 2019 and then rebooked for 9 August 2019. On 13 September 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident and informed him that as the work had been completed, it would now proceed with the stage two panel review of the complaint and that the next available date for a meeting would be 27 September 2019.
The panel meeting was held on 27 September 2019 and the landlord’s final response to the complaint was sent to the resident on 20 November 2019. The landlord informed the resident that:
1. It apologised for the length of time that it had taken to resolve the issue. It noted that fitted wardrobes are an unusual fixture in its properties, but that it should not have taken as long as it did to reach a resolution. It also apologised for, and recognised the inconvenience of, the number of visits that were required to the resident’s property.
2. It should have logged a formal complaint into the matter when the resident first contacted the landlord about the wardrobe and expressed dissatisfaction with its position regarding repair responsibilities.
3. The panel had awarded the resident £80 compensation as a full and final settlement of the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Section 2(3) of the tenancy agreement describes the landlord’s obligations as it relates to repairs and upkeep of the property. This, in part, states that it is responsible:
“To keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the Premises including:-

(i) drains, gutters and external pipes;

(ii) the roof;

(iii) outside walls, outside doors, windowsills, window catches, sash cords and window frames including necessary external painting and decoration;

(iv) internal walls, floors and ceilings, doors and door frames, door hinges and skirting boards but not including internal painting and decoration;

(v) chimneys, chimney stacks and flues but not including sweeping;

(vi) pathways, steps or other means of access;

(vii) plasterwork;”

Section 3 of the tenancy agreement describes the resident’s obligations. Section 3(12) relates to damage to the property and states that the resident is responsible:
“To make good any damage to the Premises or to the [landlord’s] fixtures and fittings or to the common parts caused by the Tenant or any members of the Tenant’s household or any visitor to the Premises, fair wear and tear excepted, and to pay any costs incurred by the [landlord] in carrying out such works in default.”
In light of the above, the landlord was therefore correct when it informed the resident that repairs to the fitted wardrobe would be his responsibility to resolve. Although the wardrobe was installed before the resident’s tenancy began, it would not be seen as part of the structure of the building, which is the landlord’s responsibility to maintain. The landlord was also correct when it stated that, when it agreed to dismantle the wardrobe, that it would be the landlord’s responsibility to repair the holes in the plasterwork in the walls but the resident’s responsibility for decoration.
The landlord agreed to repair the wardrobe doors as a goodwill gesture. This agreement did not mean that the landlord was under any obligation to replace the wardrobe doors once it was established that the doors could not be repaired.
However, in its final response sent to the resident, the landlord recognised that it had taken too long for it to reach a resolution and remove the wardrobe. It apologised, accepted that it took far too many appointments to complete the work, and that it should have opened a formal complaint into the matter when the resident first disputed that he was responsible for repairs to the wardrobe.
Had the landlord provided a complaint response sooner, it would have been able to clearly set out the resident’s and its own obligations and responsibilities in relation to repairs. This in turn would have managed the resident’s expectations during the period when the landlord worked with him and the contractor to reach a resolution.
The landlord acted appropriately in apologising to the resident and informing him of the lessons it had learned from his complaint. It clearly recognised and accepted that its service had been unsatisfactory, and the actions it took to remedy its errors were reasonable and appropriate. The landlord offered appropriate compensation, in line with its own compensation guidance.

Determination (decision)

32. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its response to the resident’s request for repairs to the fitted wardrobe in the property.

Reasons

33. The landlord correctly described the resident’s and its own obligations relating to the upkeep of the property, as per the terms of the tenancy agreement. The landlord was not obliged to repair or replace the wardrobe doors but offered to repair them as a goodwill gesture. The fact that the landlord offered to repair the wardrobe doors would not mean that the landlord was obliged to replace the doors once it was established that they could not be repaired.

34. The landlord apologised to the resident and accepted that the matter had taken too long to resolve and that it should have opened a formal complaint much earlier. The landlord has offered appropriate compensation in view of these errors.

Recommendation

35. The landlord should re-offer the compensation of £80 to the resident unless this has already been paid.