Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (202008393)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008393

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

27 August 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 handling of:
1. Structural issues within the property.
2. Drainage issues on the property.
3. Repairs to the resident’s boiler.
4. Repairs to the resident’s kitchen.
5. Repairs to the resident’s door and the landlord’s decision not to raise a complaint about the issue.
6. Rent arrears on the resident’s accounts.

Background and summary of events

The resident has had a periodic tenancy at the property since 28 August 2018. The resident has a physical vulnerability that the landlord is aware of. The resident lives in the property with his wife and three children.
On 10 September 2018 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise he was in rental arrears of £168.04.
On 14 September 2018 the landlord raised a repair job to remedy a fault on the boiler based on the resident’s report that the central heating was not working. It attended the property the next day and did not find any fault, although noted the resident’s report that the boiler was noisy at night.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 September 2018 and 24 September 2018 regarding rent arrears amounts of £61.87 and £75.82 respectively.
On 19 September 2018 the landlord again attended the property to remedy the fault on the boiler, noting that it was an intermittent fault and that a new boiler was required as the replacement of various parts might not properly resolve the issue.
On 21 September 2018 a job order was raised noting there was a fault with the guttering which was causing water to run down the front of the windows.
On 27 September 2018 the resident called the landlord to express his dissatisfaction because he stated that there had been an overpayment on his rental account due to a mistake by the landlord recording when his previous tenancy had ended.
On 8 October 2018 a new boiler was installed.
On 12 October 2018 the resident spoke to the landlord on the telephone setting out his belief that he did not owe any balance on the rent account.
On 19 October 2018 the guttering/drainage leak was fixed.
On 13 February 2019 the resident spoke to the landlord stating his belief it was the landlord’s fault that there were arrears on his rent account, on the basis that the landlord had covered up a benefits error.
On 26 February 2019 as a result of issues with subsidence, a structural survey request was received with the structural engineer requesting that work be undertaken on the property, specifically the installation of internal helical bars to specified areas followed by their making good with new plaster, as well as the removal of a sizable tree in the front garden.
On 4 April 2019 the landlord’s internal emails were discussing the possible removal of a tree in the resident’s garden so as to accommodate the putting in place of a hard-standing area at the property. It was noted that this tree removal could cause other damage to the property and potentially be a risk with the subsidence issue, so it was investigating what would need to be done.
On 9 April 2019 the works recommended by the structural survey were carried out. On 3 May 2019 the structural engineer attended the property and made a recommendation to remove the remaining tree stump before allowing the ground to recover/settle over the course of 12-18 months prior to undertaking repairs on the property.
On 14 June 2019 a job order was raised for the landlord to re-level the front gutter above the large bedroom window. This was finalised on 12 July 2019.
On 10 December 2019 the resident raised a complaint about outstanding work on the property, namely underpinning work as a result of the subsidence issue, problems with the guttering, cracks in the plastering and temperature in the property.
On 16 December 2019 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response in which it set out the following.
1. Regarding the underpinning work in response to the subsidence issue, a structural survey request was received on 26 February 2019 and the engineer requested that work be undertaken. Its records showed that these works were completed on 9 April 2019 and that the ground should be left to settle. The structural engineer attended again on 3 May 2019 after the resident raised concerns that the tree may not have been killed off.
2. It recommended that the remaining stump be removed and treated to prevent re-growth, with the ground then allowed to settle for a further 12-18 months prior to undertaking any repairs on the property. At this point it would look at carrying out repairs to the cracks. It noted this was necessary to prevent carrying out multiple repairs on the same issue and to minimise inconvenience to the resident, and would undertake an inspection in November 2020.
3. Regarding the problems with the guttering, cracks and cold, an inspection had been raised for 9 January 2020 to look at the issues at which point repairs would be arranged as necessary.
On 8 January 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident and explained why the structural engineer wanted to wait 12-18 months from the completion of the initial works and why it would reinspect by November 2020. The resident expressed that he wanted to get the property decorated and into a more comfortable condition. The landlord explained that he should wait until the land had settled fully and it had reinspected prior to commencing decoration to avoid having to redo the work. The resident believed that the property had already settled and that no further movement was evident. A meeting was booked for staff to attend the property on 12 May 2020 to determine if the tree that was removed was the cause of the problem and allow works to be recommended.
On 27 April 2020 the resident raised a complaint about him being told that he owed arrears on his rent account. He stated that he had asked for clarification on this but had not been provided with it.
On 16 May 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident on the telephone about the complaint. He stated that he had been making regular £50 payments towards his garage but that these were not showing up on the account. The landlord advised him to send in proof of his bank statements showing the missing payments. The landlord’s internal emails noted that with this evidence it would try to trace the payments and establish what had happened.
On 20 May 2020 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident’s complaint about the outstanding rental arrears. It provided a breakdown of the payments on each of the resident’s current and previous rent accounts, noting the balance or amounts owing on each:
1. £113.12 on the garage. It stated that if the resident was certain he had made payments on this account since the most recent payment on 5 January 2020, he needed to send it evidence in the form of bank statements so that it could locate any missing payments.
2. A closing balance of £757.09 on his previous tenancy terminated in September 2018. It noted that former tenant arrears were still recoverable, and that its policy would be to move any new payments that moved the resident’s other accounts into credit would be applied to the balance. On this basis, the balance was £753.44 at the time.
3. The garage tenancy terminated in January 2019 with a closing balance of £0.
4. There was a rental balance of £0 on his current tenancy, noting that he was receiving full housing benefits.
It reiterated that the resident needed to provide bank statements to prove he had made payments that did not appear on the rent accounts. Without evidence to the contrary it noted it would proceed with the assumption that the balances were correct and that the resident would therefore need to pay the balance.
On 3 June 2020 the resident spoke to the landlord about the matter, and it was agreed that the resident would send through the bank statements.
On 5 June 2020 the landlord rang the resident repeatedly, with the latter stating he was about to send through bank statements that he and the landlord would review together to see if there were any missing payments. On the fourth call the resident did not answer. The landlord’s internal emails noted that the debt had built up during a period that the resident wasn’t in receipt of full housing benefits and wasn’t covering the shortfall. It noted the resident had not provided any evidence of payments that were missing, and he had been given the opportunity to do so. It noted he would have to clear the debt or prove there were missing payments, otherwise the landlord would take the garage back.
On 21 July 2020 the resident attempted to raise another complaint about the arrears. Part of the complaint the resident raised on this occasion was his position that the landlord’s administration errors had resulted in him paying two lots of rent (on two different properties) since the commencement of his new tenancy. He also expressed displeasure with how he had been treated by the landlord’s staff in their communication with him.
On 27 July 2020 the landlord provided another complaint response on the rent accounts complaint. It noted its previous response of 20 May 2020 which had set out its accounting of the various payments the resident had made and the outstanding amounts on the resident’s garage rent account. Following this the resident had provided incomplete bank statements to the landlord which it had reviewed and provide a list of each payment displayed on the account. It noted that all of the payments the resident said he had made had been accounted for, save for one made on 19 September 2019. Regarding this latter payment, it had requested he provide the remainder of the relevant bank statement to ensure the payment had not bounced back, but this had not been provided by the resident. It had also advised him that he could request an indemnity claim through his bank to retrieve the payment if he was certain it had been made. Regarding the outstanding balance, it noted this would need to be balanced or the garage tenancy be terminated to avoid it taking enforcement action against him.
Around this time, the structural engineer attended the property to check on the progress of the ground settling following the underpinning work.
On 30 July 2020 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident’s complaint about the timeframe for the structural work, as well as the leaking boiler and the remedial works following this. It set out the following.
1. As per its telephone call with the resident of the same day, the resident was aware that the structural engineer had re-visited and completed the inspection. The report had been sent to the landlord which had arranged with the resident to visit the following week with the contractor to go through the works required. It noted that once this had taken place, it would be able to plan in the works and establish a starting date.
2. During the telephone call the resident had confirmed that the leak had been resolved and there were no signs of further leaks.
3. The landlord had spoken to its repairs team and asked for a staff member to attend the property and establish what remedial works were required. It noted it would contact him to set up an appointment to this end.
4. On the basis that each of the repair works had been rectified or was in the process of being rectified, it stated that it was unable to uphold the complaint.
On 6 August 2020 the landlord attended the property to discuss the necessary repairs including structural work and repairing of skirting in kitchen and kitchen doors. It advised that it would not renew the kitchen units as this was not necessary.
On 11 August 2020 the resident’s local councillor contacted the landlord noted that the resident had contacted it about a number of outstanding repair works. It was noted that a recent visit had gone ahead at the property, but that the resident felt the proposed repairs were an incomplete list. It requested that the landlord discuss the matter with the resident to establish what works it could undertake to resolve the issue.
On 14 August 2020 the landlord carried out a visit at the property in which it noted various necessary repair works. It noted that it would likely not renew the kitchen given the nature of the outstanding works, which were largely drawer repairs, and the rehanging of a kitchen cupboard door front. The resident was satisfied with the suggested works to the lounge and back bedroom.
On 18 August 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident regarding the inspection that had gone ahead. It was noted that during the visit various works were identified:
1. The landlord had agreed to carry out structural repair works to the windows in the front and rear bedroom, more extensive plastering work to a wall in the lounge, and re-plastering to a crack to the side of the chimney in the front bedroom. Additionally the landlord had agreed to have the front and rear doorsteps realigned, along with some pointing work at the rear of the property, mould treatment and decorative works for the kitchen cupboard and pantry.
2. It noted having had an in-depth discussion about the condition of the kitchen. Although the resident’s opinion was that the kitchen should be renewed, the landlord’s position was that it could be repaired. This was on the basis of the kitchen being relatively modern, appropriately sized and designed having been fitted under decency works previously. It also took into account that the works required were specific to a drawer and hinges to cupboard doors, and the resident was advised at the visit that these issues could be resolved by means of repair as opposed to comprehensive removal of the kitchen. It noted the resident had expressed that if the kitchen was not to be renewed, he did not wish for any of the other works to go ahead either, including the structural works following the settling of the ground. This was how the visit had ended. It recommended that the resident allow the repair works to go ahead.
3. In terms of the structural works required, particularly to the lounge wall where helical bars were to be fitted, it wished to prioritise the works and have them carried out as soon as possible. It noted it was prepared to undertake the works if the resident changed his mind about allowing these. It also stated that if the resident did not allow access within a reasonable period, likely six months, it would have to consider taking enforcement action to ensure the work went ahead as a safety measure.
On 19 August 2020 the landlord’s internal emails noted that, as the particular tree had been removed, it believed the property was stable from the effects of any ground movement after having been left to recover. Therefore, it considered the structural repairs remaining were only cosmetic, so there was no real risk to health and safety if the works were not undertaken.
On 21 August 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that the kitchen was beyond repair and that he was experiencing health and safety problems as a result. The landlord’s internal emails of the same day noted that the cracks the resident was referring to had been checked by a structural engineer who advised that since the tree had been removed, the walls shouldn’t need reinspecting for the next 18 months.
On 14 September 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident on the telephone and agreed that it would discuss the outstanding works to establish what it should undertake moving forward. On 17 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident setting out the agreed upon outstanding works to be completed, including:
1. Bracing works to living room and bedroom as per the structural survey
2. Decoration to pantry due to hairline cracks and mould
3. Plaster patching to kitchen walls around door frames where the resident had removed the architraves and skirting boards
4. Rehanging the base unit door to the kitchen
5. Renewing the drawer runners in kitchen drawers
6. Realigning all kitchen doors and drawers
7. Adjusting the lock to the rear door (job had been raised)
8. Refitting of the front door (job had been raised)
9. Additional plastering works to the left side of the chimney breast to front bedroom
10. Check front and rear gutters for repairs (leaks) (job had been raised)
11. External brickwork pointing below the kitchen window.
It noted that it had discussed the nature of the structural works with its engineer, and had been advised that the cause of the issue i.e. the tree had been removed, and therefore the affected walls of the front living room did not present an immediate risk. It had been advised that the structural works, if not actioned, could be reassessed 18 months later. Should the works not go ahead, it noted it would re-inspect the issue, although stating that its repairs team was keen on ensuring the structural works commence as soon as possible. In regard to the remaining works, the landlord noted:
1. The resident had spoken to it on the phone on 14 September 2020 and brought to its attention concerns about decoration costs following works, particularly in the living room. It noted it was normal procedure to discuss any decorating allowances once structural works were scheduled and allowances were only made once the actual repairs had been carried out.
2. It also stated that three of the repairs discussed on 14 August 2020 had been booked in by the resident, however it wished to progress with all the outstanding works, including the structural works. It encouraged the resident to book these in.
On 22 September 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to raise a complaint about:
1. The structural report of the property.
2. The landlord’s staff conduct.
3. The time taken to resolve the complaint.
4. A four-foot hole in the back yard due to subsidence.
5. A faulty boiler.
On 23 September 2020 the landlord’s internal emails noted that it was prepared to undertake the outstanding repairs but would not renew the kitchen, and that this was the main point of contention with the resident. The landlord noted that it was trying to undertake the repair works but that the resident was refusing these.
On 7 October 2020 the landlord’s internal emails noted that the resident had refused all works during a previous visit, which had been some time following 14 August 2020.
On 14 October 2020 the landlord provided its complaint response to the complaint of 22 September 2020 in which it set out the following:
1. The landlord had provided a full response to the complaint about the structural report of the property in its response of 17 September 2020.
2. Regarding the way a particular staff member had interacted with the resident, having considered the staff member’s responses and the lack of evidence supporting the complaint, it was not going to accept this. It warned the resident against making multiple unjustified complaints against staff trying to offer help and assistance went against its policy.
3. It acknowledged that a few months had elapsed since the resident had raised concerns about the repairs to his property, but noted that he had had responses to his enquiries in good time and in accordance with its complaint procedure. It regretted that the issue had not yet been resolved but was hopeful that the resident would accept the resolution offered in the 17 September 2020 complaint response.
4. The issue with the boiler had been responded to in the landlord’s complaint response of 30 July 2020. In this, it confirmed the boiler had been repaired and that the resident’s request for remedial work would be subject to further inspection. A follow-up inspection did happen and additional work was authorised. It considered this a reasonable response to the complaint, stating that it was sorry he had had problems with the boiler but noting that these had now been resolved with the additional necessary work ordered.
5. Regarding the condition of the kitchen, as set out in the landlord’s letter of 18 August 2020 and 17 September 2020 that the kitchen could be repaired rather than completely renewed and set out which repairs could be undertaken. It asked the resident to confirm if he would allow the repairs to be undertaken, which it noted it would raise if so. It noted the issues had been investigated and the proposed repairs deemed to be sufficient. Multiple officers and a head of service had confirmed that the specific repairs would be undertaken.
6. Regarding the resident’s position that he was not in rent arrears, the letters of 20 May 2020 and 27 July 2020 had set out exactly what rent was owed to the council and why. The resident had been given the opportunity to supply evidence to support his complaint that he did not owe some of the arrears. It suggested that if the resident had evidence to support his complaint that it to provide it promptly.
7. The landlord noted that the resident’s behaviour over the previous months had been unreasonably persistent and vexatious, noting the resident had been changing the basis of the complaint as the investigation proceeds, submitting repeat complaints with minor variations and repeatedly arguing points with no new evidence. It requested he stop using the complaint procedure to pursue matters that could be considered as general enquiries.
On 16 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident, acknowledging his comments and noting that it had requested he be contacted about the outstanding repairs. It stated however that its position on the complaint had not changed from its 14 October 2020 response. On 20 October 2020 the resident advised that he was happy for the landlord to proceed with works on the guttering and repairs to the doors.
On 27 October 2020 the resident’s MP wrote to the Ombudsman noting that the landlord had declined to further investigate the complaint. On the same day contractors attended the property to carry out a repair to the door. The resident contacted the landlord stating that the workers were carrying out the work poorly, although the contractors stated they were undertaking the work properly. They noted that the resident was filming them and critical of the approach they were taking.
On 29 October 2020 the resident raised a new complaint about the conduct of the landlord’s workers in installing the door which he considered to have demonstrated insufficient workmanship. On 18 November 2020 the landlord attended the property to inspect the door and found it to be working satisfactorily.
On 25 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that it was declining to raise a new complaint about the standard of a door repair and what he considered to be insulting communication from the landlord’s staff, on the basis of the resident’s unreasonable persistent behaviour. It noted it was passing on the comments to the relevant service area. It maintained the position that the resident was acting unreasonably in continuing to raise complaints. It noted that any further complaints about repairs to the property would be referred directly to the services responsible who would take appropriate action, but not be recorded as formal complaints.

Policies and Procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement notes that the resident must pay rent consistently each week. The landlord’s income collection framework document notes that the landlord should attempt to contact the resident in a number of ways about any issue with rent arrears. It will be based on staged processes. The resident must be made aware of their debt at an early stage and given an opportunity to come to an arrangement to clear the arrears. The consequences of not reaching an agreement and/or not maintaining it will be carefully explained.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy document notes that:
1. Emergency and urgent repairs which demonstrate a danger to residents or a high priority, such as an insecure external door, receive a 5-day or less response priority.
2. Non-urgent responsive repairs receive a 28–calendar day response priority.
The landlord’s complaints policy notes that it will not accept as complaints:
1. A first request for service.
2. A complaint that has already been responded to under the complaints procedure.
3. Matters where the requested outcome is considered to be unreasonable.
4. An appeal of a decision where there is no fault in the way the decision has been made.
The policy’s ‘Unreasonable complainant behaviour’ section notes that it is unable to properly respond to a complaint if a resident is making frequent, lengthy contacts with repetitive information. It notes it will take action to restrict access to its services when unreasonable behaviour of this nature persists, examples of which include:
1. Refusing to accept that certain issues are not within the scope of a complaints procedure.
2. Changing the basis of the complaint as the investigation proceeds.
3. Submitting repeat complaints with minor additions/variations that the resident insists makes these ‘new’ complaints.
4. Refusing to accept a decision and repeatedly arguing points with no new evidence.

Assessment and findings

Structural issues

The landlord relied on the advice of its structural engineer who confirmed the position that the ground needed to be allowed to settle for 12-18 months after the works carried out on 9 April 2019 before repairs to the property, specifically the cracks, could be undertaken. As it explained to the resident, this was a reasonable approach to take given it would minimise the need for multiple repairs of the same issue and minimise inconvenience to the resident as a result of the subsidence issue. Given the resident’s concerns, it sent the structural engineer to attend the property again on 3 May 2019 to examine whether a tree that was thought to possibly have contributed to the subsidence issue had been properly killed off. Further work was recommended and undertaken, with the evidence indicating that the resident paid for the stump to be removed once this was completed. Each of these steps was a necessary part of the process and demonstrated that the landlord was acting in an appropriate way in responding to the subsidence issue.
Once all work was completed, the landlord was entitled to rely on the expert opinions of its contractors and structural engineers that the land needed to be allowed to settle for a period of 12-18 months. While it is acknowledged that this may have caused some frustration to the resident who wished for the matter to be resolved more promptly, it was a reasonable approach in the circumstances given the nature of the repair work. To undertake further work prior to the ground “settling” would risk the permanence of the work, potentially requiring fixes to be made in future. The landlord took a reasonable approach by waiting to see that the ground had settled before carrying on with further repair works including plastering of cracks and decoration.
Once this amount of time had passed, the landlord indicated its willingness to proceed with work to finalise the structural repairs and carry out repair work to the plastering and decorations. The resident refused to allow this, which the landlord replied to reasonably by requesting the resident contact it if he had changed his mind, while also noting that the work would likely need to go ahead in the short term as a safety matter, regardless of the resident’s position. It was reasonable in its communication, kept to its timeframes and sent contractors and engineers to the property to carry out further inspections when the resident raised concerns. In this way it responded reasonably to the reported issues and complaint.
The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence that the question of reimbursement for the cost of a tree stump removal has been raised with the landlord as a formal complaint, therefore this issue has not been considered as part of this investigation.

Drainage issues on the property

The landlord raised a job order on 21 September 2018 in response to the resident’s reports of a fault with the guttering. The issue was resolved on 19 October 2018, which was approximately a month later. The landlord raised another job on 14 June 2019 to re-level the front gutter on the property, which was finalised approximately a month later on 12 July 2019.
When the resident raised a complaint about other issues with the guttering on 10 December 2019, the landlord responded within a week with its stage one complaint response, in which it noted an inspection had been booked for 9 January 2020 to consider the issues. This was appropriate given the matter was raised as a complaint rather than a repair report, and it was unclear on the nature of the problem. There is no evidence of any further issues with the guttering, including in the time period after the landlord agreed to check the matter again in its response of 17 September 2020.
The landlord responded appropriately and in good time to the resident’s reports of the issues, completing the repair jobs in line with its service standards. On other occasions it inspected the issue in response to the resident’s reports while finding no evidence of any problem. In this way its response was appropriate and in line with its policies.

Repairs to the boiler

The evidence available indicates the landlord raised a repair job to remedy the boiler on 14 September 2018, based on the resident’s reported issue. It responded appropriately by attending the next day and finding no fault. When the issue recurred within a few days, it again attended and noted that the issue was intermittent. It took the appropriate view that a new boiler was required on the basis that the replacement of parts alone may not properly resolve the issue. This was a positive step to take, given it demonstrated the landlord was attempting to find a more permanent resolution to the problem from early in the process, rather than attempting to find a potentially cheaper solution by replacing only particular parts.
The boiler was replaced on 8 October 2018, which was less than three weeks after the need for it was established. Given the issue was intermittent, this was an appropriate period for the landlord to take to arrange for the boiler replacement. The resident’s follow-up complaint which included reference to the boiler was addressed by the landlord, who noted that following the replacement, there had been no reports of further leaks. Considering all the circumstances, the landlord’s response was appropriate and demonstrated reasonable steps to resolve the issue for the resident.

Repairs to the kitchen

On 6 August 2020 the landlord attended the property and examined the issues the resident raised. It noted the necessary works and returned to do so again a week later on 14 August 2020 in response to contact from the landlord’s councillor who had indicated that the resident believed there to be outstanding issues it had not addressed. On both occasions it defended its decision not to renew the kitchen, given the outstanding repairs were limited to drawers and a cupboard door front.
On later occasions the landlord agreed to undertake additional work as a goodwill gesture, which was an appropriate attempt to progress the matter. On 17 September 2020 the landlord set out the outstanding work in an attempt to finalise the repair issues and subsequent complaint. As part of this it agreed to additional works in the kitchen, along with the repairs that had previously been established as necessary such as the repairs to the drawers and cupboard. These additional works included plaster patching to kitchen walls where the resident had removed architraves and skirting boards, as well as renewing of the drawer runners, realigning all of the kitchen doors and drawers and undertaking some extra pointing work. These were appropriate steps as a compromise for the resident who held a different view as to the scope of the works required, and demonstrated an attempt by the landlord to bring the issue to a satisfactory conclusion.
The resident has expressed to the landlord on multiple occasions that he is dissatisfied with its assessment of the scale of works necessary to repair his kitchen. On each occasions the landlord has maintained a consistent position in response, justifying this position on the basis that the kitchen was modern, appropriately sized, functional and the fact that the repairs required were minor. This position was confirmed in the landlord’s final complaint response of 14 October 2020 which set out that various staff members including a head of service had considered the issues, and all maintained a consistent position that a full kitchen renewal was unwarranted. In this way the landlord justified the position it took.

Repairs to the door

Following discussions with the resident on 14 September 2020 which gave the resident an opportunity to communicate further repair jobs that he believed remained outstanding to the landlord, the latter raised an order to refitting the resident’s front door. There was a delay following this, as the resident stated that if the landlord was not going to renew the entire kitchen, he did not want any of the other works to proceed either. However following the provision of the complaint response on 14 October 2020, the resident eventually agreed to the works. The landlord’s contractors attended the property in an attempt to carry out the work on 27 October 2020, and this work was completed despite the resident expressing that he was dissatisfied with the quality of the job.
Following the resident’s raising of a complaint about the issue, the landlord re-attended the property to examine the door and found it to be working satisfactorily. It listened to the resident’s concerns but set out its position that the job had been carried out to a reasonable standard and the repair issue was resolved. This was reasonable given it relied on the opinions of both its contractors who considered the situation once the repair had been completed and its own attendance a number of weeks later, both which established the work had been done to a reasonable standard.
Considering the landlord’s decision not to raise a complaint about the door repair, this was a reasonable decision given the context of the various complaints made by the resident up until this point. The resident has raised a number of complaints over a number of years, the majority of which the landlord has investigated and reasonably declined to uphold. The resident regularly raised repair issues for the first time in the forms of complaints and continued to pursue the same issues despite the landlord setting out its final positions on the matters and offering reasonable solutions such as the necessary repairs in the kitchen. The contractors reported that the resident made the repair work very difficult on the day they attended to carry out work on the door, and that they were satisfied with the work they had carried out despite the persistent criticism from the resident who filmed them.
The landlord took the fair position that it would continue to respond to future repair reports as necessary, but that because the resident would not engage meaningfully with the repair process it was not obligated to continue raising these. It gave valid warning to the resident on this point in its 14 October 2020 complaint response and was therefore justified in taking the subsequent approach it did in accordance with the specific terms of its complaints procedure and policy.

Rent account arrears

The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s complaint about its communication with him stating that he was in rent arrears. It gave the resident the opportunity to provide evidence that he had made payments which had not been received or recognised by the landlord. It undertook a thorough examination of both its own accounts and the evidence provided by the resident, as set out in its communication with him on 20 May and 27 July 2020. Regarding a particular payment that had not been accounted for, the landlord provided advice to the resident on how he might dispute this with his bank or provide further evidence to prove that the payment had not bounced back.
Each of these steps was a reasonable one and demonstrated that the landlord was treating the resident fairly, giving him every opportunity to prove that the outstanding balance owed to it was in error. In the absence of further evidence, it was entitled to rely on the calculations it had made and request that the resident balance the garage account or the tenancy would be ended.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding the complaint about its handling of structural issues on the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding the complaint about its handling of drainage issues on the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding the complaint about its handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding the complaint about its handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding the complaint about its handling of repairs to the resident’s door and the subsequent complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding the complaint about its handling of the supposed rental account arrears.

Reasons

The landlord relied on the expert advice of its structural engineer in establishing what works needed to be undertaken to resolve the subsidence problem. It undertook said works before taking the position that the ground beneath the property needed to be allowed to settle before further works could be progressed, including plastering and decoration. It communicated this validly to the resident and followed the proper procedure, following up the works once the period of 12-18 months had passed as recommended.
The landlord responded promptly to reports of issues with the guttering at the property, sending out contractors to fix the issues when they first occurred. When the resident reported further issues in the form of a complaint, the landlord investigated and was unable to find any further fault.
The landlord took reasonable steps in response to the resident’s reports of an intermittent fault with his boiler. Following an initial call-out where no problem was found, on a second call-out the landlord made the decision to replace the boiler. This was appropriate as an attempt to find a permanent resolution to the issue for the resident. It acted promptly to undertake this replacement work and the new boiler was installed within a matter of weeks.
The landlord relied on the expertise of its contractors who concluded over multiple attendances the particular work that was necessary to repair the kitchen. It maintained a consistent position that a total renewal of the kitchen was unnecessary and demonstrated that it was prepared to undertake the repairs to the kitchen drawers and cabinet, as well as further decorative work, pointing and realigning the kitchen doors. It fulfilled its repair obligations regarding the kitchen.
The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s reports of an issue with his door. It sent out contractors to carry out repair work who were satisfied with the standard of the job undertaken, and this was confirmed by the landlord’s staff who examined the door in response to the resident’s complaint. Despite the landlord’s dissatisfaction with the repair job, there is no evidence to indicate that it was not carried out to a sufficient standard, given the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s challenge on this point. It was also entitled not to raise a new complaint as the resident had demonstrated vexatious behaviour which went against its complaints policy and was raising repair issues via the complaints process.
The landlord relied on the evidence available to determine that the resident owed money on his rent account. When the resident challenged this, the landlord offered him the opportunity to provide evidence to establish that its calculations were incorrect, and took this on board in carrying out an investigation. It accounted for each of the payments there was evidence for and set out in clear terms to the resident why there was an outstanding balance. Beyond this, it provided advice to him on other ways he might try to get the money back from his balance and provided him with fair warning that he needed to balance the account or face having the tenancy agreement on the garage ended.