Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202017219)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017219

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

16 February 2022

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 the resident’s reports about the condition of the property.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 1 July 2020 to 23 August 2020. The property is a one-bedroom bungalow.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that repairs work including plastering, will be considered ‘green’, or non-emergency, non-urgent, works, which have a target timeframe of repair of 90 days.
The tenancy agreement explains at section 13.1, under ‘ending the tenancy’, that if a tenant decides to terminate the tenancy, they will be required to give 4 weeks termination notice.
The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure; it aims to investigate and respond to a complaint at stage one within 10 working days. Where a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint and requests escalation to stage two, the landlord aims to review the outcome of the complaint and provide a stage two response, within 15 working days. In circumstances where the landlord requires longer to respond to a complaint, it will agree a revised timeframe with the complainant.

Summary of events

The landlord’s ‘Empty Homes Post Inspection Quality Control’ sheet for the property dated 27 January 2020 and another on 3 March 2020, notes no works required to it.
Prior to accepting the tenancy, the resident is said to have visited the property on two occasions the landlord has stated that at the viewings, it explained to the resident that carpets and decoration would be the resident’s responsibility. The landlord has not provided documentary evidence to support this, however, the resident accepts that he did view and accept the property and that he did not get close enough to notice the walls and that the landlord had advised him to “visualise” what the property would look like, once decorated.
Shortly after the commencement of the tenancy, the resident began expressing his dissatisfaction with its condition, in particular the standard of the walls and ceilings, which he said had become apparent when he had commenced decorating, using his own decorator.
The landlord has acknowledged in its complaint response, that there was email correspondence from the resident between 30 June 2020 and 22 July 2020, which it said it responded to, although these emails have not been provided to this investigation, only one undated hand-written letter of complaint from the resident’s wife.
In particular, however, the landlord states that the resident specifically reported holes in the kitchen walls on 13 July 2020 and the resident also verbally expressed his intention to terminate the tenancy on or around this date. The resident wanted to terminate the tenancy due to the condition of the walls.
The landlord’s records show a report with issues with the plastering at the property was made on 17 July 2020 but does not provide any additional information as to what works were carried out or when.
The landlord states it responded to the issues in good time, in accordance with its policy and carried out works, although the resident states that the landlord sent a contractor who merely “squirted foam into two of the holes”, which did not adequately address the issues. The resident believed the internal walls were not up to standard, with the plaster crumbling off them when attempts at decorating were made. He wanted to terminate the tenancy and was disputing the four-week termination period required to end the tenancy and believed he should be entitled to a 14 day “cooling off” period. He also wanted reimbursement of the one week’s rent he had paid in advance.
On 22 July 2020, following the ongoing contact with the resident and his dissatisfaction with the walls, the landlord raised a formal complaint.
On 18 August 2020, the landlord responded at stage one of the complaints process. It did not uphold the complaint, finding that it had acted in accordance with its policies and procedures. It found that the property was accepted as is and no issues were raised at the outset and when matters were later brought to its attention, it responded to these appropriately.
The landlord explained that the tenancy agreement is a legally binding contract and does not come with consumer rights protection, or a “cooling off” period and explained how a tenancy should be ended in accordance with the contract.
It further explained that one week’s rent is required in advance of a tenancy agreement to help prevent arrears from occurring. It added that that four weeks’ notice is required to terminate a tenancy and the conversation the resident had with it, expressing intention to terminate, did not constitute a termination notice. The landlord recognised that this was a stressful time for the resident, however and agreed therefore to waive one weeks’ rent payment.
On 15 and 23 September 2020, the resident requested escalation of the complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure. This correspondence has not been provided to this investigation, although this includes issues with a fire and guard at the property being removed after viewing and this not being advised, issues with works to the copper pipework and the shed having rubbish in it.
On 22 October 2020, the landlord issued its stage two response. It did not uphold the complaint, finding again that it had followed its procedures, provided a good level of customer service and that the property was in a habitable standard when let to the resident. Specifically, it made the following points:
1. The property met the lettable standard at the tenancy start date.
2. Properties are not fully re-plastered before being let and this was never promised to the resident.
3. The resident’s decision to employ his own contractor to sand and prepare the walls for papering was his and had he stayed in the property and an inspection taken place, a £90 credit for decorating would have been issued to his rent account.
4. The landlord advised that as a gesture of goodwill it would deduct the £90 credit for decorating from the resident’s rent arrears and noted that it had already agreed to waive the one week’s rent payment as a gesture of goodwill.
5. Had the resident advised the landlord that the shed had not been cleared out it would have arranged for this to take place.
6. The fire and surround that was in place at the viewing but removed before the commencement of the tenancy was due to electrical safety issues and was not replaced, as per standard practice, due to the property already having a sufficient heating system in place and the fire being a secondary heating source. The landlord said it would take on board the resident’s comments in respect of this however, insofar as any changes to the property since viewing, should be discussed at sign-up.
7. The copper pipework was completed to an appropriate standard.
8. The report of a hole in the ceiling and wall were acted on appropriately.
9. Notification of additional holes appearing during sanding did not appear as a request for repair but a statement of what the resident’s contractor had found and in an email from the resident on 21 July 2020, he confirmed that the issues with the plastering were not evident until decorating works started.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s records indicate that the property was at a lettable standard prior to the resident moving into it and indeed, the resident accepted the property in the condition that he found it, having viewed it on one or more occasion, with no issues or works being raised at this point. In addition, there is no evidence to contradict the landlord’s finding that the property was in a habitable condition at the tenancy start date. The legal principle ‘caveat emptor’ or ‘buyer beware’ is relevant because, having had an opportunity to inspect the property, the resident accepted it in the condition that he found it; unfortunately for the resident, this principle remains the case, even in circumstances where he says he did not get close enough to the walls to carefully inspect them. Additionally, the issues reported with the walls were not apparent until his own decorating works had started and so arguably could not be foreseen by either the resident or the landlord.
Nonetheless, this does not negate repair responsibilities on the part of the landlord and once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs it is responsible for, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable period of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case. In this case, the landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend ‘green’ or non-urgent, routine repairs, within 90 days.
Not all works are the responsibility of a landlord; decoration and filling small holes in ceilings and walls are a responsibility of a tenant, however larger plastering works are the responsibility of the landlord and where the area of responsibility is unclear, a specialist inspection is required. Had the landlord had an opportunity to attend and assess the situation, more extensive works that were the responsibility of the landlord, may have been identified. As was the case, holes were reported and were attended and filled and no further issues were reported until the resident decided to terminate the tenancy.
In terms of the works that were carried out, although the landlord’s records do not specify what date the landlord attended to carry out works at the property, it did carry out works at the property, which was within the landlord’s target timescale of 90 days. The resident has stated dissatisfaction with the quality of works, however, there is no evidence of his dissatisfaction with the quality of workmanship or repeated issues despite the works, which would have given the landlord an opportunity to re-raise works and carry out a more significant inspection and/or analysis of the problem and determine if and how any issues identified could be addressed.
The landlord’s obligations to repair, commence once on notice and there is no evidence that it was ‘on notice’ in respect of the quality of workmanship and/or ongoing issues with the walls or any issues with the shed, copper piping, or dissatisfaction with the removal of the fire and guard, until after the event, when the resident had decided to move out. In the absence of an opportunity to put things right, there can be no finding of service failure on the part of the landlord. It is not known why the shed was not cleared and the shed did not form part of the empty property inventory, however, without being made aware of the issue, it could not resolve it.
The landlord has said that the resident’s contact about additional holes in the property were made as a “statement of fact” as part of his ongoing dissatisfaction with the property and not as notice of repair issues. This communication has not been provided to this investigation, so it is not possible for specific assessment of this contact to take place, although it does appear to be the case that the resident took the decision to leave the property very early on, rather than providing the landlord with the reasonable opportunity to carry out repairs and put things right.
The resident, being dissatisfied with the condition of the property and not wanting to stay to await assessment of the situation and/or repairs or works carried out where deemed appropriate, had the option to terminate his tenancy in accordance with the terms of the contract. He was not entitled to the “cooling off” period he hoped for, however, nor was he entitled to not pay the rent, which he had agreed to pay in accordance with the terms of the contract.
The landlord’s actions in explaining this and offering to credit his rent account with £90, was therefore reasonable, because it was not obliged to do this, in the absence of having an opportunity to reassess the situation with the walls/ceilings.
It was also reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge that the resident felt stressed by the situation and waive one week’s rent, because again, this was not something it was obliged to do and instead was entitled to that week’s rent, as per the stipulations in the tenancy agreement, even in circumstances where the resident decided to leave early.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about the condition of the property.

Reasons

There was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the condition of the property insofar as the evidence indicates that the property met the lettable standard.
The landlord was not obliged to waive the rent for reasons pertaining to the condition of the walls or ceilings or otherwise – the landlord was not put on notice of all of the issues referred to and did not have a reasonable opportunity to revisit the plastering to make a proper assessment of it.
The resident gave notice of termination of the tenancy, which he was entitled to do, however, the tenancy agreement stipulated four weeks’ notice and the landlord was not obliged to waive rent, for the reasons described.

Order and Recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord to review its record keeping procedures, given that some of the correspondence in this case (emails and at least one phone conversation) was not provided.
The landlord to consider the inclusion of sheds in its ‘Empty Homes Post Inspection Quality Control’ sheet.
The landlord to confirm its intentions in respect of the above recommendations within four weeks of the date of this report.