Red Kite Community Housing Limited (201915237)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915237

Red Kite Community Housing Limited

24 March 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 is about the landlord’s response to concerns raised by the resident about:
1. The upgrade works to the heating system.
2. The upgrade work to the electrics.
3. The asbestos removal.
4. The handling of a decant.
5. The lack of a damp-proof course in the property.
6. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the lack of a damp-proof course. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme says:

“The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

(a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.

Both the resident and the representative raised this issue with the Ombudsman; however, as it has not been considered by the landlord as part of a formal complaint, the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to respond and the matter is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme. The complaints about the heating and electrical works, asbestos removal, the decant and complaint handling are within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

Background

The residents have an assured non-shorthold tenancy with the landlord. They have lived in the property since 1989 which at the time was owned by a local authority. The landlord took over the property in 2011. The property is a detached three‑bedroom house with a garage. The landlord has been aware since 2017 that one of the residents has asthma. The residents have a representative (the representative) in their dealings with the landlord.
The tenancy agreement says that the landlord will keep in good repair and proper working order any installation provided by it for, among other things, space heating, water heating and for the supply of, among other things, electricity.
Under the tenancy agreement the resident agrees not to tamper with, among other things, electricity supplies; as well as working with the landlord to minimise the risk of fire at the property. The residents must also allow access to their property for maintenance and/or safety checks to be carried out. Residents may make improvements to the property with the written consent of the landlord. Failure to seek such consent is a breach of the resident’s obligations under the tenancy agreement.
In addition, the landlord is expected to meet the home standard set by the Regulator of Social Housing. The Home Standard includes ensuring that homes meet the Decent Homes Standard components of which relate to the degree of thermal comfort in a resident’s home as well as the standard of repair. There is also the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which is concerned with avoiding or minimizing potential hazards. The landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, including excess cold. It explains that excess cold can be caused by several factors including the absence of central heating/poor inefficient heating systems and one of the preventative measures listed is an appropriate, properly installed heating system. The existence of a category 1 hazard is in itself a breach of a social landlord’s legal and regulatory obligations.
The landlord’s repair policy says that the following categories are used to prioritise repairs:
1. Emergency – the contractor will attend within two hours and complete the repair within 24 hours. This category is used when there is an immediate danger to a person or serious risk of damage to the property.
2. One day – the contractor will respond and complete the repair within the same day.
3. Urgent – the contractor will respond within five working days.
4. Routine – the contractor will respond within 20 working days.
The repairs policy also says that the landlord will generally look to make good after completing a repair to the surfaces relating to the work, and where required, the area surrounding the repair. This will include redecoration.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance booklet says that residents should be prepared for the works by, among other things, moving valuables and furniture from work areas. It adds its contractors will work in a safe, clean and orderly way.
The landlord’s decant policy sets out what it will do when it is necessary for it to move its tenants or leaseholders from their homes due to a need for the property to have major work carried out or where it is being demolished or refurbished. The landlord may require homes to be decanted for a number of reasons, including but not limited to where gas, electricity or water will not be available for a prolonged period of time.
The policy says that a reasonable offer will take into account the tenant and their households’ needs (not their wishes), and thus will be an appropriate size, will be a suitable condition, and will take into account any specific health or social needs that may affect where they live. Accommodation that is not suitable as a permanent offer may be considered reasonable for a short-term arrangement.
The policy also says that a disturbance allowance may be paid to compensate tenants to cover reasonable costs involved in moving to another property temporarily or permanently due to major repairs or demolition.
The landlord’s electrical safety policy sets out specific guidelines to enable it to be assured that the electrical safety of fixed electrical installations is inspected and maintained at appropriate frequencies to minimise the risk of fire, damage to property or injury or death to residents. Where residents carry out property alterations and/or improvements which included additions/ alterations to the electrics, authorisation must be sought from the landlord prior to any works being undertaken.
Electrical Safety First is a campaigning charity that aims to reduce deaths and injuries caused by electricity in UK homes. They produce guidance on the minimum provision of electrical sockets in the home which is dependent on the size of the room. For small (up to 12m2) or medium sized rooms (12m2 to 25m2), it says there should be the following number of twin sockets: main living area 4 or 6; single bedroom 2 or 3; double bedroom 3 or 4; kitchen area 6 or 8; hallways and landings 1 or 2; utility room 3 or 4; and loft 1 or 2.
The landlord’s asbestos management policy says that it will:
1. Ensure that all materials in communal areas likely to contain asbestos are identified and regularly inspected.
2. Take reasonable steps to ensure that materials in domestic dwellings likely to contain asbestos are identified where practicable to do so.
The landlord’s website says that asbestos in the property is not a problem as long as it is not disturbed and is in good condition; it only becomes a problem when it is damaged or is disturbed. It adds that if the asbestos is not damaged or disturbed, the safest thing to do is to leave it where it is. If there is some damaged asbestos in the property, the landlord will immediately assess the risk and then decide the best course of action to deal with it to make sure residents are not exposed to any potential risk.
The landlord has a three-stage feedback policy. On initial contact the landlord will try to resolve matters within two days. When a complaint is more complex, a formal investigation will take place. It will acknowledge complaints at this stage within two working days and aim to provide a formal response within ten working days. A complainant may request an appeal if they are dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint investigation. All appeal requests will be considered based on any new evidence or information not previously taken into account. The landlord will acknowledge the appeal request within two working days and aim to provide a formal response within ten working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that compensation can take the form of goodwill which is discretionary and may be given where the landlord decides that a level of service, action or inaction is not in line with its service standards.

Summary of key events

At the end of 2016 the local authority’s environmental health team identified that the property suffered from excess cold (paragraph 8). They noted that, among other things, there was no evidence of sufficient insulation in the roof space and no evidence that the boiler was capable of simultaneously heating the property and providing sufficient hot water.
On 20 September 2018, following the loft being insulated in late 2017, the landlord’s heating contractor completed a report following an inspection of the property on 5 September 2018. This was shared with the representative. They contractor recommended that the heating system be considered for a full upgrade. The landlord told this Service that this work was initially scheduled as part of a planned programme renewal during 2023 but was brought forward because it recognised that the position of the boiler flue, although perfectly safe and functioning as required, presented some challenges in terms of servicing which required several floorboards in one of the bedrooms to be lifted during the annual gas safety check.
On 11 October 2018 a heating installation report was completed by the heating contractor. On the following day the landlord wrote to the representative explaining that it would not be able to install the recommended radiator sizes for the bathroom because the residents had installed a vanity unit and sink which reduced the available space needed for the recommended radiator size. It added that, in the utility room, it would only be able to install one of the recommended two radiators as the residents wished to retain the position of furniture currently in situ.
The landlord said that a start date of 5 November 2018 had been agreed with the residents and it expected the work to take five days adding “as a worst-case scenario” it expected the property to be without heating and hot water for a maximum of two days. The landlord explained that it would not decant the residents while the work was ongoing as it was not its policy to do so unless the property was uninhabitable.
On 9 October 2018 a pre-inspection survey took place with regards to the replacement of the boiler at the property.
On 15 October 2018 the representative raised several concerns about the heating upgrade including the radiator sizes in the bathroom and utility room; a disclaimer form that the landlord wanted the residents to sign; that she had been given conflicting start dates; and asked for alternative arrangements for the residents for the two days when the property would be without hot water.
On 19 October 2018 the landlord provided a schedule of works for the heating upgrade to the representative.
On 23 October 2018 the representative told the landlord she wanted to discuss the heating upgrade; two days later she asked it for a conference call with the residents.
On 26 October 2018 the representative told the landlord that the cold and dust that would be generated by the heating upgrade would not be good for the resident’s health. She asked that the work be postponed until Spring 2019 or that the landlord decant the residents while the work was completed. The representative provided a recent letter from the resident’s GP which said the resident was recovering from a lower respiratory infection and also suffered with asthma. The GP added “both these conditions will not be helped by having to live in a cold, dusty environment”. The GP added that the proposed work put the resident “in a difficult situation”.
On 29 October 2018 the landlord wrote to the representative saying, after having visited the residents, it had agreed that the heating upgrade would be delayed until Spring 2019 when the weather would be warmer.
In February 2019 the landlord received notification of a disrepair claim. The notification included concerns that the property was “exceptionally cold”, suffered from damp and mould and that the boiler had only been serviced twice. The solicitor said that the residents had increased energy costs using electric heaters over winter and that they “lost all enjoyment of the property in the winter months”.
On 25 June 2019, eight months after it delayed the heating upgrade, the landlord responded to the representative’s concerns that the residents had yet to be given information about this work. The landlord subsequently provided the start and finish dates, and confirmation that it would fit a standard heating system in accordance with their heat loss assessment. It confirmed that the work would start on 1 July 2019 and should last five days. The landlord also explained that its electrical contractor would be attending the property the following day to carry out a full electrical check of the home and to update the electrical certificate for the property.
On 26 June 2019 the electrical contractor attended the property but could not issue an electrical certificate. The contractor told the landlord that there was “DIY wiring” throughout the property installation; the outbuildings had many visible defects and all three buildings were fed via a 13-amp plug. He noted that this was a health and safety issue as well as an electrical one. The contractor said that “a qualified electrician would not have installed the wiring in such a poor way”. The contractor noted that the last electrical inspection report did not mention any DIY wiring and the outhouses had not been tested at that time.
Work started to upgrade the heating system on 1 July 2019. On 2 July 2019 the representative contacted the landlord to raise a number of concerns over the heating. The landlord responded the same day after consulting with its heating contractor, confirming that:
1. The furniture had been moved as required and as a gesture of goodwill (as this was usually considered to be the residents’ responsibility).
2. The property was left with hot water overnight.
3. A staff member had spoken to the residents during the day and had answered all their questions.
4. It would not be replacing carpets and the ‘making good’ related to decorations only.
5. The loft was being boarded out that day (to take the weight of the boiler).
6. As was standard practice, there had been some discussion before the job started to ensure all the details were correct, including to make sure the landlord was taking into account the resident’s specific requirements as far as was practical and this resulted in some agreed changes. However, these changes had not altered the delivery timescale.
7. The engineers carrying out the works were fully qualified.
On 3 July 2019 tiles were uncovered that the heating contractors suspected might contain asbestos. The heating upgrade work was subsequently paused while an asbestos survey was carried out. (This Service has not seen a copy of that asbestos report.) In an internal email the landlord noted that the asbestos contractors would carry out asbestos air monitoring prior to works commencing, personal and background testing during the works.
In an internal email dated 4 July 2019 the landlord noted that the floor tiles within the hallway had all been removed and a section had been removed from the dining room. It noted the asbestos remedial works were almost finished and that, on completion, the analyst would run a set of re-assurance tests; at that stage the heating contractors would complete their works.
On 5 July 2019 the landlord the responded to an enquiry from the representative from 3 July 2019. It said that it had tried to minimise times when hot water would not be available. It also said it could provide electric fan heaters if there was a requirement to heat the property. The landlord also said that, while it had previously completed an asbestos survey, the floor tiles were not accessible at the time as they were under fitted carpets. It explained that, where it considered asbestos materials might be present, appropriate checks were carried out to determine the exact nature of the material. In this case, it said it undertook a specific asbestos survey as it was a requirement under the Control of Asbestos Regulations. The landlord reconfirmed that it would not replace any carpets unless substantial damage was caused and provided information on the circumstances in which a decant may be required. It added that a heating upgrade was not work which it considered necessary to decant tenants for.
On 5 July 2019 the representative asked the landlord to have the property cleaned by the end of the day due to the resident’s respiratory condition. In an internal email later that afternoon the landlord noted that it had arranged for a cleaner to attend later that day but, due to their limited availability, a different cleaning contractor would attend the following day also. The landlord noted further that it had arranged for the residents to stay in the guest room of one of its sheltered schemes close by overnight. In a further internal email, the landlord noted that the residents were “very happy re guest room”.
On 6 July 2019 the cleaning contractor told the landlord in an email that the clean of the property had been completed and “the tenant is happy”.
On 8 July 2019 the landlord responded to an enquiry from the representative the previous day. It explained that the remaining tiles posed no risk as they contained a low-level asbestos content and were in good condition, as confirmed by the independent asbestos survey; the hot water issue had been resolved; and the marks on the carpet had been cleaned. It added that it would consider whether a further clean was appropriate once the further necessary work had been carried out. It said it would discuss these with the residents in person.
On 10 July 2019 the landlord asked the asbestos contractors to remove the broken vinyl tiles (which did not contain asbestos) that were visible between the kitchen and the pantry. It noted that the bitumen adhesive had tested positive for asbestos.
On 12 July 2019 the electrical inspection of the property was completed. It found the condition of the electrical installation to be “unsatisfactory. It said there were multiple extension leads feeding power and lighting which were a trip and fire hazard and that supplies were overloaded for the outbuildings. It noted that the dangerous items in need of immediate remedial action had been disconnected at the time of the test. These were: the electricity supply to the outbuildings and kitchen lights (which had been plugged into an extension lead); plug sockets in a bedroom which were a fire hazard; and loft lights and bedroom side lights which had been powered from a double socket and an extension lead respectively. The contractor also identified fifteen issues which were potentially dangerous and where urgent remedial action was required.
On 17 July 2019 the residents reported that there was no hot water at the property. The repair log evidences that was resolved the same day.
On 19 July 2019 the landlord wrote to the representative confirming there was no fault with the heating system. It explained that the hot water had gone off automatically in accordance with the timer settings. It added its heating contractor had discussed the required settings with the residents and set the timer according to their suggestion. The landlord also said that it would be contacting the residents the following week to agree dates for several items of work including electrical works that were likely to take several days.
On 26 July 2019 the landlord wrote to the representative saying that it had told the residents that a full re-wire of the property was necessary. It provided an overview of the planned electrical rewire, including a document that confirmed the number of sockets per room. The landlord explained that the rewire was necessary as a considerable amount of unsafe DIY electrics had been identified in the property. It said it had provisionally booked the work for the week commencing 19 August 2019 and proposed that its contractor walk around the property with the residents in advance to make clear what works were due to be carried out. The landlord confirmed that the DIY electrical supply to the conservatory, carport, shed and garage would be removed, and it would not be providing replacements. The landlord also said that the residents should make arrangements so they were not in the property during the days of the work.
On 29 July 2019 the residents told the landlord that they would be seeking advice from their solicitor about the electrical works.
On 5 August 2019 the landlord visited the property with its electrical contractor and discussed the electrical upgrade in detail with them. While this Service has not seen a contemporaneous note of that visit, the Ombudsman understands that, at that visit, the landlord went through the property indicating where the plug sockets would be situated and the residents requested that trunking be kept to a minimum.
On 8 August 2019 it provided the residents with a copy of the most recent Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) from 2018.
On 21 August 2019 the landlord visited the property to show the residents where the sockets and fittings would be in each room.
On 8 September 2019 the landlord noted that it would offer to decant the residents to one of its sheltered schemes for the duration of the electrical works; it was awaiting confirmation of the start date.
In an internal email dated 10 September 2019 the landlord noted that the rewire was a five-day installation, and during the works “re-admittance will not be permitted for health and safety reasons”. It stated that once the property had been handed over to the contractors, “it will be deemed a building site”.
On 13 September 2019 the landlord told the representative that the asbestos floor tiles would be removed on 23 September 2019, the day that the re-wire was due to commence if that was convenient to the residents.
On 17 September 2019 the landlord noted it had arranged to decant the residents to one of its sheltered schemes while the electrical work took place.
On 19 September 2019 the landlord’s solicitors wrote to the resident’s solicitors asking for confirmation that they would give access from 23 September 2019 for the re wire of the property.
On 25 September 2019 the representative told the landlord that access to the property would be given “with due notice”. She said the residents were not aware of the work starting on 23 September 2019 until receipt of an email from their solicitors on 22 September 2019. She added that the residents had an appointment on the morning of 23 September 2019 so access was not possible that day. The representative set out what the residents would require in terms of a decant which included access to a fridge, kitchen, washing machine and TV.
On 1 October 2019 the landlord noted that the residents had agreed to make their own decant arrangements and would stay with their son for the duration of the electrical works. The work would start on 7 October 2019 and be completed by 13 October 2019. The landlord confirmed that in writing to the residents the same day.
The electrical works started on 7 October 2019. On 10 October 2019 a domestic electric installation certificate was completed following a full re-wire of the property and the installation of a new fuse board.
On 13 October 2019 the residents reported no heating or hot water. The repairs log evidences that this matter was resolved the same day.
On 14 October 2019 the landlord noted that on return to the property the previous day the residents had reported the following concerns:
1. The amount of trunking used.
2. The kitchen worktops had been drilled to run wires to sockets – stating this was without their permission.
3. The number of blanking plates used to cover the previous switches and sockets.
4. The level of noise from the bathroom fan.
5. The position of one double socket in bedroom 3 which was obscured by a cabinet, which the landlord said it would move.
The landlord noted that the property was safe for use with the carpets down and all heavy furniture back in its place.
On 5 November 2019 the representative made a formal complaint to the landlord about the recent heating and electrical upgrades to the residents’ home as well as the decant. She said that the decant was not appropriate as it was to the sheltered housing scheme where the mother of one of the resident’s had died.
On 12 November 2019 the residents reported that the kitchen radiator was not heating up properly. The repairs log evidences that this was resolved on 18 November 2019.
On 20 November 2019 the residents reported that they were again having problems with the radiator in the kitchen. The repairs log evidences that this matter was resolved on 26 November 2019. The heating contractor noted that the radiator value was only slightly open, restricting the flow to the radiator; it was not known who had close the radiator valve.
On 21 November 2019 the landlord wrote to the residents saying that all the radiators in the property except the bathroom (paragraph 23) were sized correctly and that the programmer and room thermostats were good quality fittings. It said that it would attend the property on 26 November 2019 with its heating contractor to address any further concerns and go through the system controls with the residents again.
On 4 December 2019 the landlord responded to the representative at stage one of its formal complaints procedure. With regard to the heating issues the landlord said:
1. The heating upgrade had been delayed until Spring 2019 at the request of the residents (paragraph 29).
2. Its contractors had swept and cleaned at the end of each day and, as a gesture of goodwill, it had engaged cleaners to clean the property on the Friday afternoon and Saturday morning after the contractors had left.
3. It had not replaced the carpets; the residents had not given detail of damage to them. It had agreed to have the carpets cleaned but then decided to wait until all works had been completed. The residents had agreed.
4. The landlord gave an assurance that it had not, deliberately or otherwise tried to make things difficult for the residents. It said it had acted in a manner which fostered a positive landlord/tenant relationship and had completed numerous improvement works as a gesture of goodwill.
5. Regarding the resident’s health, it had a note from her GP from November 2017 which confirmed she suffered from asthma and the dust was affecting her health. It said, in response to that, it changed the works to minimise the impact of it on her health. No further medical evidence had been provided.
6. It would honour the allowance of £10 per day for food for seven days between 7 and 13 October 2019 which amounted to £140. (It subsequently paid that sum by cheque on 20 December 2019.)
7. It understood the residents had spoken to a member of its staff about a vase that they reported as damaged during the heating upgrade works. The contractors said they were not aware that one of their operatives had broken this item. The residents did not dispute the contractors’ position or request any compensation for the item.
With regard to the electric issues, the main points were:
1. On 26 June 2019 the kitchen light was found to be potentially unsafe as its cable showed signs of deterioration and was therefore disconnected (paragraph 32). It was not a British Standard approved light and was not one that it or the local authority would have installed and was replaced with a standard fitting when the electrical check was carried out. It said, as a gesture of goodwill, it would be willing to install an additional light in the kitchen nearer the units to provide supplementary light on the work surfaces.
2. Its decision to carry out an electrical test was due to poor quality DIY electrical works that had been undertaken in the property, including inappropriate fittings owned by the residents. It said it had explained at a meeting in August 2019 that surface mounted trunking conduit would be used where it could not pull out existing cables through existing concealed conduit.
3. The scope of the electrical work was discussed in a meeting with the residents on 5 and 8 August 2019. The representative had asked that the landlord liaise directly with the residents’ solicitors and it did so.
4. In November 2017, when it had replastered some walls, it had been able to sink wiring into the wall and trunking was therefore not required. At the meeting in August 2019 the possibility of conduit being used was mentioned and confirmed in the schedule of works supplied to the residents’ in its email of 10 September 2019.
5. The floor plan with electrical sockets had been agreed with the residents prior to the works commencing. Blanking plates had been used where it had to run trunking to accommodate the new wiring. It used the recommended number of electrical sockets as stipulated in the published guidance issued by the “Electrical Safety First” Minimum Provision of electrical sockets in the home” guidance (paragraph 13) and had fitted an extra socket in one room. The positioning of the sockets had been agreed with the residents during a visit by the contractor prior to the works starting (paragraph 46).
6. It understood one socket in the bedroom meant that furniture could not be flush to the wall. The plan of where the sockets would be located had been agreed in advance with the residents.
7. The new light sockets could not be situated in a position where the trunking was least obtrusive as it could not pull through the new wires in the existing conduit. These works were agreed by the resident as part of the schedule of works. The landlord said that it would remove the blank switches and fill the holes at a time convenient to the residents.
8. It had asked the residents to ensure all valuables were removed or securely locked away before the work started to prevent accidental damage to their possessions. All its contractors complied with standards which required them to carry out each and every job with due care and attention and it was entirely rejected that they would enter the property intending to cause malicious damage.
With regard to the asbestos, the landlord said that materials containing asbestos did not present a risk if they were in good condition and left undisturbed. Its contractors were trained to identify potential asbestos-containing materials and alert the landlord. During the heating works, low-risk asbestos containing materials were identified at the property and the work was stopped while it commissioned a specialist asbestos removal contractor. The asbestos was removed following correct procedures and in controlled conditions; as an additional precaution air-monitoring was carried out. The landlord referred to the asbestos survey reports that confirmed no further action was required in relation to asbestos at the property and no high-risk material was identified.
With regards to the decant, the landlord said it had estimated the electrical works would take five days and they were completed in four. It had offered to decant the residents while this work took place and then arranged for the work to be carried out when they were in situ; however, the residents went to stay with their son for a few days. It explained it had no obligation to rehouse the residents during the works and it was not policy to do so during an electrical re-wire; the offer of a decant was made in an effort to provide assistance. It had offered a sheltered housing scheme guest room as guests have the option to use a common room which had a TV; communal kitchen facilities and Wi-Fi. This decant option was refused by the residents and they went to stay with their son.
In conclusion the landlord said it believed it had taken extensive steps to investigate the resident’s concerns and to foster a positive landlord and tenant relationship. It said it had undertaken numerous, improvement works at the property and hope that it could work with the residents to resolve any outstanding issues.
On 19 December 2019 the representative asked to escalate the complaint to the appeal stage. She expressed concern that the residents were being dismissed and that the landlord had not addressed the issue of the items damaged by contractors. The landlord acknowledged this on 23 December 2019.
On 16 January 2020 the landlord issued its stage two response to the representative under its formal complaints procedure. It made the following points:
1. The landlord’s Head of Property had responded to the complaint after undertaking a thorough investigation which included talking to all appropriate staff members and reviewing its records. After undertaking his investigation, he concluded that he had enough detail to respond fully and therefore an additional visit would not have been necessary.
2. Regarding the alleged damage caused to the residents’ personal items, the landlord took photographs upon completion of the works which show the property being handed back in good condition. The landlord did not feel there was sufficient additional evidence provided which enabled it to consider the alleged damage to items further.
3. All works relating to the previous Ombudsman determination had been completed and, where relevant, signed off by the local authority’s environmental health team. It gave an assurance that it took the residents’ concerns very seriously.
4. The landlord confirmed that the food allowance compensation – which covered the period in which the resident’s decanted themselves while the electrical works were carried out, was goodwill. It explained that compensation could be statutory or goodwill can take the form of either statutory or goodwill and, as there was no legal or other requirement for it to compensate the cost of food during a temporary decant, the payment was a goodwill gesture.
5. The landlord said that it had considered how it might consider strengthening the relationship between it and the residents. It said it hoped they would agree to attend mediation with it to identify issues, discuss solutions and reach agreement.
The landlord signposted the representative to the Housing Ombudsman.
On 27 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the residents requesting a date to reattend to complete the making good works from the electrical works. These were:
1. Remove the blanks over the redundant light sockets and fill and rubdown, left for them to decorate.
2. Move garage light switch
3. Re-instate light to back garden as a gesture of goodwill.
4. Install an additional light in the kitchen as a gesture of goodwill.
In an email to the representative dated 11 February 2020 the landlord confirmed that the contractors had drilled into the kitchen work surfaces so they could access the wiring to allow them to install the correct amount of sockets. These holes were concealed by trunking upon completion. These works had been detailed in the schedule of works programme agreed with Mrs Passey.
On 12 February 2020 the electrical contractor attended the property to carry out these works. However, the residents refused access unless the contractor consented to being filmed while he worked. The contractor did not consent to this and therefore the works did not go ahead.
On 31 July 2020 the landlord gave a further response to the residents which included an update on items damaged or removed during the works. It said that the removed items had been reported to the police who were not taking further action. In relation to damaged items, the landlord asked for photos of before and after so that it could consider this further. It added that the photos provided previously had not been clear as to what they were intended to demonstrate.
In September 2020 the landlord told this Service that in May and August 2020 the residents and landlord had mediation. It also said that, after significant communication and negotiation with the residents, it was finally able to agree access to carry out the remaining remedial works. It said the majority of these works were carried out on 11 September 2020 and it was in the process of arranging for a further date to complete the outstanding issues.
When the representative approached the Ombudsman, she said she was seeking compensation for the residents in the region of £250/£500 a week for 28 months which was the period of the repairs.

Assessment and findings

The heating upgrade works

The landlord has a responsibility to keep in good repair and proper working order the installations for space heating and water heating in the property. The landlord told this Service that it brought forward the heating upgrade from 2023 due to the positioning of the boiler flue which made the annual gas safety check difficult to carry out (paragraph 22). The landlord did not suggest that the upgrade was necessary following the environmental health team’s earlier findings of excess cold (paragraph 21).
The landlord acted appropriately in obtaining a heat loss report and following the recommendation of the contractor to install a new heating system.
A start date was agreed of 5 November 2018 (paragraph 24). While the representative told the landlord that conflicting information was given about this start date, the Ombudsman has not identified any. However, this work was subsequently postponed at the request of the residents.
This decision was reasonable because it took into account the request of the residents who provided medical evidence that supported their view that, carrying out the work when the weather would be cold, would not be ideal. The Ombudsman’s understanding is that the excess cold had been rectified by the insulation works carried out in 2017 (paragraph 22). In the absence of a determination by the environmental health team that the risk of excess cold remained, it was reasonable for the landlord to take the view that delaying the heating works would not have a negative impact on the residents.
The heating upgrade took place from 1 to 5 July 2019 (paragraph 34). The landlord responded to the concerns raised by the representative in a reasonable and proportionate manner (paragraphs 34 and 34).
There is an obligation on the operatives carrying out the work to do so in a clean way (paragraph 11). This should prevent a property being left in an unclean state on completion of any works. In this case, the representative made the landlord aware that the residents were unhappy about how the property had been left with particular regard to the dust and the resident’s medical condition. The landlord acted quickly and appropriately by instructing cleaners and by decanting the residents for one night while this cleaning took place.
While there were subsequent teething problems with the operation of the new heating system, the evidence shows that these were resolved swiftly and in line with the landlord’s repair policy (paragraphs 43, 58, 62 and 63).

The electrics upgrade works

The landlord has a responsibility to keep in good repair the electricity supply to the property (paragraph 6). Once it became aware of the poor state of the electrical installations in the property at the end of June 2019, it arranged a second inspection (paragraphs 33 and 42). The landlord’s subsequent decision that a full re-wire was required to the property was appropriate because it was relying upon specialist contractors expert knowledge in this area.
The landlord acted reasonably in visiting the property to discuss further the electrical work with the residents in August 2019 including the placement of sockets (paragraphs 47 and 49).
The work was planned to start on 23 September 2019 and the landlord sought agreement for that date initially through the representative on 13 September 2019 (paragraph 52) and then through the resident’s solicitors on 19 September 2019 (paragraph 54). The Ombudsman considers that ten days was sufficient notice for this work. The residents’ concerns about the decant relating to this work is dealt with below.
The work started on 7 October 2019 and was completed on 10 October 2019 (paragraph 57). The representative raised concerns once the residents had moved back to the property relating mainly to the placement of sockets and the amount of trunking used; however, the landlord’s obligation is to keep the supply of electricity to the property in good repair and proper working order. It had no obligation to place sockets exactly where the residents required or not to use trunking. However, the landlord subsequently agreed to undertake work to resolve some of the issues raised by the representative such as removing blank switches and fill the holes left by their removal (paragraphs 65 and 73). This was reasonable and resolution focussed.
In its complaint responses, the landlord considered the representative’s claim that both the heating and electrical contractors had damaged goods in the property (paragraphs 65 and 71). The evidence shows that the landlord acted in a reasonable manner by taking steps to resolve this matter by later by inviting the residents to provide further, clear evidence of the alleged damage (paragraph 76). In the absence of evidence that the contractors were responsible for the damage, it is reasonable for the landlord not to take action.
Overall, there is no evidence of any service failure in the landlord’s handling of the electrical upgrade works.

Asbestos removal

The kitchen tiles that potentially contained asbestos came to light while the heating upgrade work took place. An asbestos test took place which confirmed the presence of asbestos. This service has not seen a copy of the asbestos report. The landlord explained to the representative that these tiles had not previously been accessible as they were under fitted carpets.
The evidence shows that some the tiles in question were removed in July 2019 (paragraph 36). The landlord explained that no further action was required because no high-risk material was identified (paragraph 65). That was appropriate because where there is asbestos material that is in good condition and not disturbed, the landlord’s procedures say that it should be left in place (paragraph 18).
The evidence shows that the landlord subsequently agreed to remove the remaining floor tiles when the electrical upgrade took place (paragraph 52). While it was not obliged to do so, doing so demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to reassure the residents which was reasonable given the resident’s medical condition.

The handling of a decant

The landlord offered to decant the residents while the electrical upgrade works took place. This was appropriate and in line with its decant policy which says decants are appropriate when “major work” is carried out (paragraph 12). It is not clear; however, why the landlord’s complaint response of 4 December 2019 said it had no obligation to rehouse the residents during the electrical work as it was not policy to do so (paragraph 68). That statement is at odds with the internal email which stated the residents would not be readmitted to the property while the work was ongoing and that it would be “deemed a building site”. That statement was not appropriate; however, given that it had no bearing on the decant itself it is reasonable to conclude that there was little detriment to the residents by this statement and therefore it does not amount to a service failure.
The landlord offered the residents a decant to one of its sheltered housing schemes. There is no evidence that the landlord was made aware at the time that this scheme was where the mother of one the resident’s had died. Given that, the landlord’s offer of a decant at this scheme was appropriate because of the short length of the decant and that it met the needs of the residents as requested by the representative (paragraph 55). There is no evidence of any service failure in the landlord’s handling of the decant.

Compensation

In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. That is, to consider the impact of the landlord’s failings on the resident which can include distress, inconvenience, time and trouble and what is fair. In the absence of a finding of service failure, the Ombudsman cannot order compensation.
The Ombudsman cannot order damages; as that would be for a court to decide on. The amounts ordered below are within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of service failure in the landlord’s handling of major repairs and decants.

Complaint handling

The landlord aims to respond to formal complaints at investigation and appeal stages within ten working days (paragraph 19). The landlord’s responses at both stages were slightly outside that timescale. However, given the number of issues raised and the detailed responses from the landlord this Service does not consider that the delayed responses amount to a service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. The upgrade works to the heating system.
2. The upgrade works to the electrics.
3. The asbestos removal.
4. The handling of the decant.
5. Complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord responded reasonably in response to the residents’ request to delay the heating upgrade in late 2018. The landlord acted quickly and appropriately to the concerns about the level of dust in the property following these works by having it cleaned professionally and decanting the residents overnight while the clean was carried out.
The landlord acted appropriately by deciding to carry out a full re-wire of the property to rectify the issues identified by the electrical contractor. The landlord gave the residents adequate notice of the works; gave details of the work to be undertaken and took reasonable action to resolve the issues that the residents expressed dissatisfaction with following the upgrade. It was reasonable that the landlord sought further evidence to support the residents’ claims that the contractors had damaged items in the property.
The landlord took swift action to remove the asbestos material that was identified during the heating upgrade works. Its initial decision not to remove the low-risk material was appropriate and in line with its policy.
The landlord’s decision to decant the residents while the electrical upgrade took place was appropriate because it was in line with its decant policy. The offer of a sheltered housing scheme for the residents was reasonable given that the decant was short-term and met their needs. The landlord’s subsequent statement that it had no obligation to decant the residents was not appropriate as major works were carried out at the property. This statement, some months after the decant itself, does not amount to a service failure.
While there were minor delays in the landlord’s complaint handling, this did not amount to a service failure due to the detailed complaint and its response.