Redditch Borough Council (202216595)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216595

Redditch Borough Council

7 February 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about works to the bin store cupboard commencing without a Section 20 consultation.
   2. Reports of dissatisfaction with the works to the bin store.
   3. Reports of being without heating or hot water.
   4. Associated formal complaint.

Jurisdiction

2. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
   1. Concerns about works to the bin store cupboard commencing without a Section 20 consultation.
4. In accordance with paragraph 42(f) the Ombudsman may not consider matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedures.
5. The resident stated that the landlord had not carried out a Section 20 consultation prior to commencing work to the bin store cupboard. He queried his liability to cover the apportioned costs associated with the work. As part of his suggested resolution, he wanted the lease to be varied so that the bin store cupboard formed part of the landlord’s communal area, rather than being demised under his lease. He also stated that there were errors within the lease.
6. The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) has powers to determine Section 20 matters and therefore this aspect of the complaint is better suited to the FTT. The resident may wish to consider contacting the Leasehold Advisory Service to get independent advice. Whilst we are unable to consider this element of the complaint, we can assess the landlord’s response to reports about the quality of work, being left without heating and hot water, and how the landlord handled the complaint.

Background

7. The resident is the leaseholder of the 1-bedroom first floor flat in a communal building owned by the landlord. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, it acknowledged correspondence during this complaint where the resident advised he had mental health vulnerabilities.
8. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 13 September 2022. He said he contacted the landlord, via his councillor, in relation to the bin store cupboard due to its poor condition. The landlord inspected the cupboard and deemed it to be unsafe due to asbestos, and within a week it was commencing work. Part of the bin store belonged to him as it was demised in his lease, and he believed therefore that the landlord should have consulted under Section 20 prior to commencing work.
9. The landlord responded at stage 1, following the intervention of this Service, on 22 December 2022. It said the bin store cupboard was in “very poor” condition and contained asbestos which required an emergency response. It outlined its actions in relation to demolishing and rebuilding the bin store cupboard and its communications prior to commencing work. It discussed its actions relating to the reconnection of gas supply and its offer to replace the resident’s boiler at a reduced cost. It also offered reimbursement of standing charges and apologised for its late response.
10. The same day, the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He said the landlord had shown no empathy in its response and it had not compensated him for its poor complaint handling. He had been reporting issues with the bin store since early April 2022 and the landlord should have been aware that it contained asbestos. He disputed that it required an emergency response. He had been left without heating and hot water for 52 days and the landlord had not considered that he was vulnerable and disabled.
11. In its stage 2 response on 11 January 2023, the landlord provided further clarification in relation to the resident’s lease and demised bin store. It explained that work was ongoing, and any defects would be resolved on completion of the work. It explained that the gas supply and boiler were the resident’s responsibility. It apologised for its complaint handling failure and offered £70 in compensation.
12. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to this Service. His required resolution to the matter included:
    1. An apology for the landlord’s failures.
    2. Compensation for:
       1. Service failure.
       2. Distress, time and trouble.
       3. Failing to accommodate his disabilities.
       4. The standing charge fees.
    3. An agreement that the work was not an emergency.
    4. That a section 20 consultation should have taken place.
    5. Agreement that he should not have to pay the costs and an adjustment made to his account.
    6. A variation to the lease so that the bin store was considered a communal area.
    7. Acknowledgement of the mental trauma the situation had on him.

Assessment and findings

13. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Reports of dissatisfaction with the works to the bin store.

14. On 13 September 2022 the resident’s local Councillor emailed the landlord following communication with him. The resident had emailed photographs which showed holes in the outside wall of the property which had not been filled as promised by the landlord. The holes had been made by the scaffolding erected to complete the bin store works.
15. The landlord stated in its response at both stages of its complaints process that the work was not complete, and any defects would be remedied on completion of the work. It also explained that there had been a delay with its gas contractor who had stated that work would be completed in February 2023.
16. On 5 June 2023 the resident contacted the landlord reporting that the holes had still not been filled on the outside of the property, there were nails protruding the wooden timber inside the cupboard, the top lock had been fitted incorrectly and he had not been given a key to open the gas cupboard.
17. During a conversation with this Service on 5 February 2024, the resident confirmed that the holes had been filled, the nails were no longer protruding, the lock was repaired and he now had a key to the meter cupboard. These matters were resolved in December 2023. It was not clear from the evidence provided when the bin store cupboard works were completed.
18. There were delays in the landlord completing minor defect works, however, the landlord’s responses, at the time of the complaint, were reasonable given that work was ongoing. This Service appreciates that this would have been frustrating for the resident however, the outstanding repairs would not have been detrimental or impacted his living conditions. This Service therefore finds no maladministration in relation to the handling of the bin store works by the landlord.

Reports of being without heating or hot water.

19. On 11 July 2022 the landlord wrote to all residents affected by the bin store works, stating that the structure was unsafe and needed removing and replacing. It hoped to commence work between 25 to 29 July 2022. It wrote further on 14 July 2022 and said it would need to turn the gas off for the period of the work. Its tenants could be provided with temporary accommodation at a local bed and breakfast and leaseholders would need to make arrangements for alternative heating, hot water and cooking facilities if they had a gas cooker.
20. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 July 2022 asking it to let the contractors know not to turn the gas back on when work was complete as he had his supplier attending on the Saturday morning to replace the meter. His supplier had been trying to book appointments to replace the meter as it did not function properly. They would replace the meter and connect it back up for him.
21. The landlord responded the same day, stating that it needed to ask him to postpone the meter being changed until the work was complete. The gas meter would be moving from its current location due to new regulations.
22. On 16 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord asking if the work to the bin store had been completed. He needed to contact his supplier to come and replace the meter and turn the gas back on. He emailed again on 17 August 2022 asking whether the landlord would be reimbursing the standing charges. He preferred a different utility provider to reconnect the gas once work was completed as they needed to come out to replace his meter due to the display being broken. The landlord responded the same day and said that the meter was being replaced by its gas provider free of charge and he would be contacted about the installation date. It would reconnect the current supply and its gas team would arrange a convenient appointment.
23. The landlord wrote to all residents on 25 August 2022 stating that following the successful removal of the bin store in July, work was at a standstill. It was waiting for its gas contractor to plan to move the gas meters from the current location to meet gas regulations.
24. The resident responded to the landlord on 26 August 2022 stating that his meter was faulty. He said he needed to get his supplier out to replace the meter as he had been without gas for a month. The landlord responded the same day and said that if the meter was faulty, he should arrange with his service provider to do what they needed to, but to let it know when this was going to happen in case there was a clash of dates with its own contractor.
25. On 12 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord asking how to get the gas turned back on. He had been without gas since 25 July 2022 and had no hot water or cooking facilities. The landlord’s internal emails referred to its gas contractor attending on 15 September, “as a gesture of good will”, to reconnect the gas supply. The landlord responded to a number of queries raised by the resident on 28 September 2022. With regards to the resident’s gas boiler, it stated that it was his responsibility to turn this back on, however, it had attended out of hours and free of charge.
26. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said it had liaised with the resident about his responsibilities concerning the gas meter and boiler. Its gas engineer attended and reestablished the gas to his appliance and carried out all necessary checks. However, the boiler had not been maintained annually and was approximately 16 years old. The boiler subsequently failed to “fire up and broke down.” The boiler was not the landlord’s responsibility however, it offered to install a new boiler, with a 7-year warranty, at a discounted value compared to current market values. It had also refunded the standing charge costs by 52 days at £0.37p.
27. It is clear that the landlord advised the resident that the gas would need to be capped while the work was completed and that he would need to make alternative arrangements during this time. It was not clear, however, from the landlord’s letter how long the gas would be capped for. It would be reasonable to assume between 25 and 29 July 2022. However, it was evident that the gas remained capped until 15 September 2022.
28. The landlord’s correspondence was confusing as to whose responsibility it was for the supply to be reconnected. In August 2022 the landlord said it would reconnect the current supply and its gas team would arrange a convenient appointment but there was no evidence to suggest it had done so. In later responses it stated that the gas supply was the resident’s responsibility. In July 2022 the landlord advised the resident to postpone having his faulty meter replaced and in August 2022 advised him to go ahead with the replacement. It would have been reasonable, given that the landlord capped the supply to commence work, that it would reestablish the supply on completion. For the above reasons, this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s response.

Associated formal complaint.

29. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and Stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
30. The resident said that the landlord’s responses lacked empathy and did not consider his vulnerabilities. The landlord had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident on its system but did acknowledge that the resident had said he had mental health issues in his correspondence. However, the resident did not state the nature of his disability or mental health during his complaint which would have limited the landlord in its responses. The evidence demonstrated that the landlord had maintained regular contact with the resident throughout the works and had offered assistance with the replacement of his boiler when it failed. It would have been helpful if the landlord had further explored the nature of the resident’s disability and any likely impact the works may have had on him.
31. There was a delay in the landlord’s complaint handling at stage 1 of its complaint process. The resident raised his complaint on 13 September 2022. This Service contacted the landlord as the resident had received no response. The landlord responded on 22 December 2022, 100 working days later and 90 working days later than its complaints policy timescales.
32. This Service’s dispute resolution principles are, be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failure in its stage 1 response but failed to offer any redress. However, it later offered £70 in its stage 2 response and apologised for its service failure. This was in line with its complaints policy and compensation matrix, and also within this Service’s remedies guidance level of redress. This Service therefore finds that the landlord has offered the resident reasonable redress in relation to its complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

33. In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the concerns about works to the bin store cupboard commencing without a Section 20 consultation is outside of this Service’s jurisdiction.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of dissatisfaction with the works to the bin store.
35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation reports of being without heating or hot water.
36. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

37. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for the delay in reconnecting the gas supply and its confusing communication.

Recommendations

38. The landlord should pay the resident £70 offered in its stage 2 response for its complaint handling failure if not already paid.
39. The landlord should contact the resident to explore the nature of his disability and update its records accordingly.