Wandsworth Council (202000746)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000746

Wandsworth Council

18 January 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 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of internal repairs to the property, including delays in completing repairs, poor communication with its contractor about the works required and the extent of the works the landlord is prepared to undertake; and
2. The landlord’s communication with the resident in relation to the repairs and subsequent complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has occupied the property, a 1 bedroom flat, since 1992, under a tenancy agreement with the landlord. A major works scheme to re-clad the building has been in progress since 2017, resulting in some damage to the internal decorations of the property. The major works contractor was initially instructed to complete the reinstatement works but has since refused to work at the property again and so the work was passed to a different contractor.
In March 2019 the resident raised a formal complaint about the ongoing reinstatement works at the property. As part of this complaint, he expressed dissatisfaction with the standard of workmanship by the landlord’s contractors, including the standard of re-plastering works and re-decoration. The resident also expressed at this time that he would not accept the replacement of the original wooden skirting boards with MDF.
Between March and June 2019 the landlord liaised with the resident and the contractor to resolve the issues, however, the contractor reported problems gaining access to the property and complained about the resident’s behaviour towards its operatives. It was then agreed that any outstanding works would be completed by the landlord’s area team repairs contractor.

Summary of Events

On 31 May 2019 a works order was raised to renew the kitchen extractor fan at the property. An electrical engineer attended, accompanied by an apprentice, but reported that the resident refused to allow them to complete the works. The contractor then emailed the landlord stating that it would not send further operatives to the property as it had received reports that the resident would not allow them to carry out their duties and that they ‘feel threatened when in attendance’. A second works order was then raised and the works completed by a different contractor.
On 8 July 2019 the landlord inspected the reinstatement works to the property that had been completed to date and followed up with an email on 11 July 2019 confirming the outstanding works. The resident raised objections about the extent of the works and the landlord informed him on 24 July 2019 that the skirting board would be replaced with a similar design and profile and that the landlord would not be decorating entire rooms as part of the reinstatement work. It confirmed that it would re-decorate affected areas by making good and painting with a colour match, where possible.
On 9 August 2019 the resident reported that the extractor fan installed in his kitchen was inappropriate, as it was designed for use in a bathroom, providing photographs of the installation manual. He asked that the landlord replace the fan with an appropriate model, to the specification of that previously installed, which had a timer and humidity sensor.
On 20 August 2019 the landlord’s electrical engineer confirmed that the contractor had fitted the incorrect extractor fan and stated that he would arrange for a replacement. It was noted that the resident was now refusing access to the contractor to replace the fan, and that he had previously refused access to the landlord’s main contractor.
An order was raised and authorised on 29 August 2019 to strip and renew wallpaper to the bedroom and living room and to paint the bedroom, living room, hallway and kitchen ceilings. The target completion date was 26 September 2019. A further order to replace the extractor fan was raised on 10 September 2019.
The resident emailed his Senior Estates Manager on 1 October 2019, raising concerns about the re-decoration of the door frames and skirting. The resident stated that this should be stripped to bare wood and not painted. He stated that he did not want paint in the flat as this presents a ‘serious toxic fire hazard’. He asked the landlord to confirm the legal basis on which it was refusing to redecorate to the requested standard, noting, ‘the landlord is normally responsible for decorating a rental property that would include the woodwork’.
The Senior Estates Manager visited the property again on 3 October 2019 to confirm the outstanding works. He reported that at this visit he had confirmed the works that would be undertaken with the resident and informed him that the door frames would not be stripped. He noted that the resident was dissatisfied that the walls would be lined where necessary and painted rather than plastered. The Senior Estates Manager raised concerns about operatives refusing to work at the property due to the resident’s behaviour, noting that works had been abandoned ‘several times’ due to the resident questioning what works were being done.
The works to replace the kitchen extractor fan were completed on 4 October 2019. The same day, the landlord’s internal emails record that the resident telephoned and that he ‘seemed very angry and was shouting on the phone’. The resident stated that he wanted to make a complaint about the outstanding works to the property and stated that the decorators were awaiting instructions.
On 21 October 2019 the resident provided photos indicating that the poor condition of the door frames may be due to the work of a previous contractor, therefore the landlord agreed that the door frames would be sanded and decorated. The works were to be added to the existing order. The landlord’s internal emails acknowledged that the door frames had been left ‘in a bit of a mess’.
The landlord received an email from its contractor on 22 October 2019 refusing to send further operatives to work in the property due to the resident’s behaviour. It noted that several of its tradesmen had reported issues. The contractor confirmed that all works were now completed apart from lining paper to new plaster in hallway and plastering and decorating in the bedroom.
On 30 Oct 2019 the landlord’s records show that an operative attended to renew the bathroom light fitting and hallway light switch at the property, and to re-fix the junction box and provide trunking for loose cables. However, the operative reported that the resident would not allow the works to be completed and shut the door while the operative was talking.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 November 2019 to request that the Senior Estate Manager was no longer involved in the management of the property and another member of staff be his point of contact instead. The resident noted that that the woodwork still needed completing. The landlord responded stating that the Senior Estates Manager would continue as the resident’s point of contact and that the alternative member of staff suggested would not be appointed to the role as she was the Estate Manager for another area.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 November 2019 informing him that its contractor was refusing to complete the work at the property. The landlord proposed to visit the property on 14 November 2019 to identify any remaining works and informed him that decorating and woodwork are usually the responsibility of the resident.
On 2 December 2019 the landlord emailed the resident confirming the outstanding works, which were to make good, sand and paint door frames, fit door stops in the living room, re-skim the hallway walls where necessary, paint the hallway walls and ceiling, strip the bedroom wallpaper, make good and paint the walls, renew the living room skirting, seal and make good the area around an access panel, fit a ceiling light in the ‘Winter Garden’ and works to the kitchen ceiling. The landlord confirmed that:

‘The above order may be amended by the contractor carrying out the work if they determine that extra work is required to complete the works during the course of the work being carried out, this will be agreed between the contractor and the Council. Should you feel that there is work missing from this order you can contact me to discuss but it is likely that the council have deemed that this work is not required’.

The landlord confirmed that no work would be carried out to the kitchen wall, as it had determined that this was not required.

The resident sent an email to the landlord on 3 December 2019 querying the basis on which contractors were refusing to work at his property. The same day an order was raised to ‘restore electrics’ and fit the bathroom light and hallway switch. The resident also sent an email on 4 December 2019, attaching photos and noting that he believed the bedroom walls needed to be re-plastered prior to redecoration. The landlord responded stating that its contractor will be instructed to be prepared to re-plaster if required. The resident then sent a further email on 5 December 2019 requesting that the skirting was not renewed with MDF.
The landlord’s operative attended to complete the electrical work on 10 December 2019. The contractor advised that it was unable to complete all works as the resident would not allow access to the electrical cupboard and fuse box. The resident denies this, stating that the contractor had access to the fuse box to isolate the circuit in order to install the bathroom light. The resident was subsequently informed that the landlord would need to inspect the fuse box as its contractor believed there may be a fault.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 December 2019, again requesting that the Senior Estates Manager be replaced with an alternative point of contact. He also requested proof of the contractors’ refusal to carry out works at the property and complained about delays in resolving the outstanding works. He believed that the confusion was due to inaccurate job orders being raised. The resident requested £50 compensation. He also stated that the landlord was refusing to complete the electrical works and denied access for an inspection of the fuse box as he stated that there was no fault. He also reported that a panel had been damaged when the extractor fan was replaced.
The landlord informed the resident on 16 December 2019 that it had requested that its contractors renew the skirting like for like. However, on 17 December 2019 the contractors in attendance informed the landlord that the resident had requested that all skirting be removed and replaced instead of just the affected areas. The resident followed up with a request on 18 December 2019 that all MDF be removed from his property. The landlord confirmed with the contractor that the skirting should be replaced like for like, but only the sections that needed to be renewed.
The landlord responded to the resident’s formal complaint on 27 December 2019. It stated that the main reason works at the property had not been completed was because the resident had been rude to contractors and interfering with their work. A number of contractors were no longer prepared to work at the property and this had caused delays. The landlord would need to investigate the suspected fault to the fuse box before proceeding with any further electrical works. The landlord advised that the resident liaise directly with the Electrical Engineer about any remedial works to the damaged extractor fan panel. The landlord confirmed that the Estates Manager and Senior Estates Manager would continue dealing with the issues relating to the property. The landlord considered that the resident’s request for compensation was not appropriate.
The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 27 December 2019. He denied being rude to contractors but acknowledged correcting them when they had not addressed him by his name. He noted that contractors attending his property were confused and uncertain as to what works should be carried out. He suggested the landlord send him copies of the orders for any outstanding works. The resident stated that the contractor did have access to the fuse box during his visit and confirmed that he had never reported an issue with the fuse box. He refused to allow the landlord access to the property to inspect the fuse box and asked it to confirm what the contractor said was wrong. The resident asked the landlord to address his request that the Estate Manager and Senior Estate Manager be removed as his points of contact. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email and confirmed that his complaint had been escalated to stage 2 on 30 December 2019.
On 6 January 2020 the landlord confirmed that the extent of the skirting works would be to remove the damaged areas and replace like for like. The resident then raised concerns in an email dated 7 January 2020 about carcinogens in MDF causing cancer, stating that he had been clear that he did not want MDF used in his property.
On 8 January 2020 the resident advised that the bulkhead needed re-plastering and that a previous contractor had confirmed that this work would be completed. He stated that he would refuse access to the landlord to complete the works at the end of January if this work was not included in the order raised to the contractor. The landlord advised that its previous contractor had not reported this work and that it had not been noted at previous inspections.
The landlord provided a response at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on 13 January 2020. It made the following comments:
1. The landlord stated that the allegations made by several of its contractors included that the resident refused to allow more than one operative into the property and put pressure on them to complete works that were not authorised. 6 contractors had independently refused to work in the property future and the landlord considered this to be ‘significant evidence’ of problematic behaviour.
2. The landlord confirmed that the repairs orders raised to contractors always included details of the works to be undertaken but noted that sometimes operatives encountered unforeseen issues. The resident had been provided with a list of outstanding works and the landlord would also provide copies of the repairs orders. It confirmed that contractors would be attending on 27, 28 and 29 January 2020 to ‘rectify the poor work done previously’ to the living room, hallway, bedroom and bathroom.
3. The landlord reiterated that it needed to inspect the resident’s fuse box and confirmed that the requested member of staff would not attend with the Electrical Engineer, as she was not the resident’s Estate Manager.
4. The landlord had asked the contractor to rectify the damage to the extractor fan panel when it attended to complete the other works at the end of January.
5. The landlord confirmed that the Estate Manager and Senior Estate Manager would continue as the points of contact for the resident’s property as its investigation had found no evidence raising questions about their competence.
6. The landlord confirmed that the presence of MDF in the resident’s home did not present a health risk but that care should be taken when machining or sanding. A recent air test had also confirmed that the asbestos present in the ceiling of the communal areas outside the property presented no current risk to health. Any defects to the walls and ceiling of the communal areas would be addressed on completion of the cladding works later in the year.
7. The landlord refused the resident’s request for £50 compensation as it could find no basis for such a payment, and noted that a number of the problems the resident had experienced were due to his behavior towards the landlord’s contractors.
The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 24 January 2019. He refuted the allegations that he had been rude or interfered with contractors’ work and requested that the landlord provide evidence. He noted the landlord’s refusal to review footage he had taken, which he stated showed misconduct by its operatives. The resident also indicated that a radiator grille had been damaged by a contractor standing on it and asked that this be replaced. The resident complained about the delays in raising an order to complete the woodwork.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for escalation of the complaint to stage 3 of its complaints procedure on 27 January 2019. It indicated that a response would be provided by 6 February 2020. On 6 February 2020 the landlord informed the resident that the response date had been extended to 13 February 2020. It apologised for the inconvenience.
The landlord’s contractors attended the property as planned at the end of January but on 29 January 2020 operatives reported to the landlord that they were only able to fit a small amount of skirting before the resident refused to let them paint. An operative reported that the resident had then made requests for additional work, including that 8 doors be stripped to bare wood and varnished and that a radiator and pipework be removed for re-plastering. The operative had indicated that he did not wish to return to the property. The resident then reported to the landlord that it was at fault for not listening to the advice of its contractors that work was required to the bulkhead.
In an email of 30 January 2020 the resident denied requesting that all doors be varnished and stated that he had been clear in his instructions to the contractor that the works related to the door frames and not the doors. He stated that the contractors should have received clear instructions from the landlord. He also noted that a previous contractor had damaged the cupboard, bathroom and front doors. This had been reported and the Estates Manager had witnessed the damage. The Estates Manager was also aware of the works that remained outstanding to the bathroom. The resident complained that the new extractor fan was inefficient and was using too much electricity. He requested a like for like replacement with the old fan.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 3 of its internal complaints process on 10 February 2020. The complaint was not upheld because ‘although some repairs issues in your property remain unresolved, this is predominately a result of your problematic behaviour towards the contractor. The landlord provided the following additional comments:
1. It supported the stage 2 conclusion that this was sufficient evidence of unacceptable behaviour by the resident, which was hindering the progress of repairs. The resident’s concerns about the behaviour of its contractor had been raised with them directly but the contractor did not consider that the video footage provided showed unacceptable behavior by its member of staff.
2. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused by its contractor initially installing an unsuitable extractor fan but noted that this issue had now been rectified.
3. The landlord would arrange for the Area Manager to attend the resident’s property with the contractors to discuss the resident’s concerns about the scope of the repairs and to clarify the work required.
The landlord visited the resident’s property on 11 February 2020, and states that at this visit it agreed with the resident all works that would be undertaken. These were the redecoration in the living room, renewal of missing skirting in MDF, replacement of living room floor tiles, repair of damaged radiator grille cover, re-plastering in hallway and associated works, re-plastering and painting in the bedroom, decoration of kitchen ceiling, renewal of extractor fan panel, varnishing of kitchen door, sealing of bath panel and renewal of taps, sanding down of doors, renewal of door stops and repair of chip to front door. The landlord informed the resident that some of the works requested, such as replacement of the kitchen extractor fan, removal of radiator pipework and works to a wall in the kitchen, would not be completed. The landlord also noted that the resident had run a wire to power a lamp in the bathroom. He was advised that this was unsafe and to contact a registered electrician to rectify the issue.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 February 2020, expressing dissatisfaction with the stage 3 response. The resident maintained that the extractor fan installed by the landlord is inadequate, as it has no humidity sensor or timer, and asked that a like for like replacement for the old extractor be fitted. The resident clarified that his complaint is about the landlord providing poor instructions to its contractor. He also objected to the landlord defending the behavior of its contractor’s operative and considered that the landlord had no evidence of his alleged poor behaviour. He noted that he had previously informed the landlord in writing that operatives may be filmed on his property.
On 19 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident in response to his email and to confirm what was agreed at the visit to his property on 11 February 2020. It noted that the resident should send photos of the additional repairs referred to in his email of 19 February 2020, so it could assess whether these should be included. The landlord was in the process of investigating whether damage to the bathroom door was caused by its contractor. It stated that it would write to confirm the date of the works in due course and asked the resident not to film operative whilst they were at his property. It also committed to conduct a post-inspection following completion of the works.
The resident and the landlord exchanged emails about the scope of the works between 21 February 2020 and 3 April 2020. The resident referred his complaint to his MP on 21 February 2020. The landlord confirmed its position regarding the schedule of works in an email on 3 March 2020 and stated that it intended to commence works on 30 March 2020. The resident noted that the outstanding issues were that he refused to have the skirting replaced with MDF and that repairs were required to damaged hallway tiles, the bathroom door he alleged was damaged by a contractor, varnishing of panels in the bathroom, fitting of a doorstop and decoration of the fire steps.
The landlord responded on 17 March 2020. It said it had not previously been advised of any defects with the hallway flooring, bathroom panels or doorstop at the visit on 11 February 2020. It asked the resident to provide photos. The landlord confirmed that its contractors denied causing damage to the bathroom door and so repairs would be the resident’s responsibility.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 18 March 2020 He stated an order had been raised previously for the damaged tiles in the hallways. He suggested the landlord reattend to inspect the damage in the bathroom caused by the contractor, which he stated the contractor had agreed to rectify. He stated that damage to the bathroom door had been reported previously. He also noted that ‘all of the woodwork is going to be varnished’ and that the skirting board replacement had already been started with softwood so he would not now permit the landlord to change this to MDF.
The landlord provided a further response on 3 April 2020. It confirmed that the first recorded report of damage to the hallway tiles was in an email from the resident in November 2020 where the resident had stated that ‘damaged tiles in the passage need to be replaced’. The landlord had no record of the resident reporting an issue with a bathroom cupboard door or vent. The landlord stated that the resident could provide further details or wait to have these issues inspected once the works commenced. It also confirmed that the doorstop would be included in the works, as it had located this job on the previous contractor’s snagging list.
The resident has indicated that to resolve his complaint he wants the landlord to reinstate the wallpaper in the hallway and bedroom, sand down and varnish door frames, address the unevenness of the bulkhead, address a raised part of the wall in the kitchen, replace the light and switch in the winter garden and replace skirting with softwood not MDF.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s Tenancy Conditions state that decoration will usually be a resident’s responsibility, however, where a tenant’s decorations have been damaged by a contractor the landlord will ‘make good the damage, taking into account the damage caused and the existing standard of decoration’. Where a repair is reported for which the landlord is responsible it will ‘take reasonable steps to put it right within a reasonable time’. Tenants are obliged to permit access to the property ‘at reasonable times to inspect it or carry out repairs or other work’.

Reinstatement Works

In May 2019 the contractor was instructed by the landlord to continue with limited redecoration of the property following the major works. The redecoration works were detailed in a schedule of completion works, dated 8 May 2019, and included to ‘prepare/feather-in existing paper edges to areas of newly installed plasterwork and decorate all to match in lounge and bedroom areas’ and ‘make good all surfaces, chips/dents and re-work/improve and finish the plaster/skirting board junction within the lounge area. Complete all decorations to new works as specification in all rooms’. The landlord’s internal emails record that this was discussed with the resident who ‘has phoned to say that he accepts that these are the works that are outstanding’.
The landlord states that the resident later requested that the whole flat be redecorated and the contractor reported that the resident would not allow it to take a sample to colour match the paint and had not provided details of the exact colours. The landlord’s position, that it would only agree to partial redecoration to match, was made clear to the resident at this time.
The landlord liaised with the original contractor responsible for the major works to determine the extent of the redecoration required. It also attended the property on a number of occasions to inspect the works carried out to date and confirmed in writing to the resident what works would be undertaken. The landlord has accepted that some works were previously completed to a poor standard and has committed to rectify damage caused by its contractors.
In its emails of 2 December 2019 and 19 February 2019, the landlord listed extensive works, as outlined at paragraphs 18 and 33 of this report, and invited the resident to raise any concerns or detail any items it had missed. The landlord also sought to manage the resident’s expectations about how the scope of the works may change once contractors were on site, depending on what was required.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that following the breakdown in the relationship between the resident and the original contractor, the landlord took reasonable steps to determine what works remained outstanding, to agree these with the resident and to arrange for the works to be completed. The landlord was frustrated in its efforts when contractors attended the property and reported poor behaviour by the resident, which resulted in them refusing to carry out further work.
Although a considerable period has passed since the reinstatement works were outlined in May 2019, the Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the resident’s behaviour has been the primary cause of the delay. The Ombudsman is satisfied from the information provided to this investigation, which includes emails from the landlord’s contractors complaining about the resident’s behaviour, that it was reasonable for the landlord to cite this as a reason for the delays. The landlord has made considerable efforts to agree the works with the resident prior to commencement and contractors have reported that on attending they have been pressured into completing additional works.
The resident has raised concerns about the accuracy of the job orders raised and the level of detail of the instructions provided to contractors. He believes that this has caused delays to the completion of the works. No evidence has been provided to this investigation that indicates that the landlord has failed to provide adequate instruction to its contractors. On some occasions, a job order will contain minimal details because, as explained by the landlord, a contractor will need to determine the precise extent of the works once on site. This is a common and reasonable approach.
The law, the terms of the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s policies and procedures dictate the works that a landlord is required to undertake to a property. It may be the case that a resident has requested works that a landlord is not obliged to complete and in such cases, the landlord should make clear its position and the reasons for refusal. In the case of some items, such as the skirting board, the landlord has explained why it is unable to comply with the resident’s request as to how the works should be completed.
The Ombudsman considers, however, that the landlord could have been clearer with the resident about the extent of its responsibilities under the law, the tenancy agreement and its policies and procedures. The resident requested confirmation of the legal basis on which the landlord was refusing to complete some of the requested redecoration and repair and according to the information provided to this investigation, he never received an explanation.
The resident indicated in the email to his MP sent on 21 February 2020 that he had been provided with a copy of a job order raised to put up lining paper in the hallway of the property and has purchased his own wallpaper, however, the landlord has since insisted that it will only paint the hallway and bedroom areas.
Where a landlord has caused damage to a resident’s internal decorations as a result of repair work, it may be legally obliged to put back the decorations as they were. The landlord has provided no explanation as to why it has refused the resident’s request to wallpaper the bedroom and hallway. It is noted that the tenancy agreement also requires the landlord to take into account the existing standard of decoration. The landlord’s own chronology provided to this investigation also records that an order was raised on 18 September 2019 to strip and renew the wallpaper in the bedroom but this work has subsequently been changed to painting only.
The Ombudsman will not make a finding of service failure in relation to the landlord’s decision to paint instead of wallpaper, as this did not form part of the initial complaint and it has not been possible to establish exactly what was previously discussed and agreed with the resident. The Ombudsman recommends, however, that the landlord reconsider its decision and either arrange for the wall papering to be included or provide an explanation to the resident as to why this work is refused, with reference to its obligations.
The current position is that the landlord has advised that woodwork will either be stripped and painted or stripped and prepared to the point it is ready for the resident to apply a finish of his choice. The landlord has maintained that it is not obliged to varnish the door frames, as it would be disproportionate to strip the frames back to wood when paint will provide an adequate decorative finish. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this is a reasonable approach.
The landlord has also confirmed that if contractors find on attending that the walls require re-plastering and that the radiator and pipework need to be removed for this to be successfully completed, this will be arranged with the landlord’s heating contractor. The resident has been advised that bulkhead will not be re–plastered but that any minor defects in the area will be made good. The skirting will be replaced to match the existing profile, which may require the use of MDF. The Ombudsman is again satisfied that the works outlined are an appropriate means of making good the damage to the internal decorations caused by the major works.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has made reasonable attempts to progress the reinstatement works and has given the resident adequate opportunity to comment and to raise additional issues. It has been responsive to the resident’s comments, as demonstrated by its willingness to consider additional repairs once the contractor is on site. The Ombudsman therefore considers that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reinstatement works and urges the resident to permit access for the outstanding works to be completed.

Extractor Fan

A works order was first raised to replace the kitchen extractor fan on 31 May 2019 but the job was not completed as the resident was unhappy that the operative attended with an apprentice and the operative reported poor behaviour from the resident. The landlord then took appropriate steps to raise a job with an alternative contractor on 20 June 2019. It is unclear from the information provided when this work was completed, however, the contractor incorrectly installed a bathroom extractor fan.
It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the skill and competence of its contractor to install an appropriate extractor fan without additional instruction in the job order. When the issue was raised by the resident, the landlord investigated this with its Electrical Engineer and acknowledged the error, for which it has apologised.
The landlord has taken reasonable steps to put things right for the resident by arranging for the fan to be replaced. The progress of the repair was hindered by the resident’s refusal to allow access to the previous contractor and by its contractors’ refusal to send operatives to the property due to the resident’s behaviour. The resident has complained that the fan runs constantly and the landlord has offered to address this when access is permitted to complete the outstanding works. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that the landlord has proposed a reasonable solution to this aspect of the complaint and that there was no service failure in its handling of the repair.

Bathroom Electrical Works and Fuse Box

The landlord maintains that the reason the electrical work to the bathroom has not been completed is because the resident is refusing access to the electrical cupboard containing the fuse box. The landlord has stated that as soon as the resident agrees to provide access it will arrange for the works to be completed.
It is clear from the information provided that the resident has indicated that he is unwilling to allow an inspection of his fuse box. Having been informed of a potential defect by its contractor, it is reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to require an inspection of the fuse box before instructing contractors to complete further work. The resident is obliged to provide access to his home for this purpose on reasonable notice and his refusal to do so is frustrating completion of the repair. There has therefore been no service failure by the landlord in its handling of the bathroom electrical works and the resident is urged to permit the landlord to complete its inspection so this aspect of the complaint can be resolved.

Communication and Complaints Handling

The resident had previously raised a complaint about the lack of progress and standard of the reinstatement works in March 2019, which it responded to at stage 2 of its complaints process. This resulted in the works being passed to an alternative contractor. The landlord treated the resident’s email of 11 December 2019 as a new complaint, as it related to the discussions and works that had taken place since the previous complaint. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
Since March 2019 the landlord has been in regular contact with the resident and has conducted inspections of the property on 8 July 2019, 3 October 2019, 14 November 2019 and 11 February 2020. Following each inspection the landlord confirmed in writing what it believed to be the outstanding works agreed. When the resident raised concerns by email, the landlord responded with details of the works it would agree to undertake. Evidence has also been provided to this investigation demonstrating that the landlord was in regular contact with its contractors about the works.
During the complaint the resident requested copies of all job orders raised in advance of the works commencing so that he could ensure that contractors received adequate instruction. The landlord agreed to this and this information was provided to the resident. The landlord has explained that sometimes the extent of the works will change depending on what the contractors encounter when they begin. The resident has not been willing to accept this. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made efforts to be open and transparent with the resident in an attempt to resolve the issues and progress the repairs.
In response to the formal complaint the landlord raised the resident’s allegations of inappropriate behaviour with its contractor and investigated the delay. It concluded, in discussion with its contractor, that the operative had not behaved inappropriately but acknowledged that he had become frustrated that the resident would not allow him to continue with his work. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord conducted a proportionate investigation into this issue and reached a reasonable conclusion.
The landlord’s complaint responses were provided in a timely manner, in some cases involving further discussions with the resident prior to issuing a formal response. Where the landlord could not respond within the timeframe initially indicated, as at stage 2, the resident was kept updated and it apologised for the delay.
The resident has objected to the inclusion of the allegations made against him in the complaint response. The Ombudsman considers that it was reasonable to refer to the allegations made against the resident by the landlord’s contractor, by way of an explanation for the delay in completing the works. It was also appropriate to take the opportunity to highlight that the reported behaviour was unacceptable and that this was preventing the parties from reaching a resolution.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s communication with the resident and its contractors was clear and that it sought to respond to concerns raised by the resident both informally and via its internal complaints process. The Ombudsman therefore concludes that there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s communication or complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reinstatement and repair works to the resident’s property; and
2. no maladministration by the landlord in its communication and complaints handling.

Reasons

The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has taken reasonable and proportionate steps to progress the reinstatement and other repair works to the resident’s property and that the main reason for the delay is that works have been hindered by the resident’s behaviour and refusal to allow access to the landlord’s contractors. The landlord has provided adequate instructions to its contractors to undertake the works it is responsible for, however, the resident believes that additional works are required. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s overall approach to the works has been reasonable and proportionate and that there was no maladministration evidence in its approach.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord has acted appropriately by inspecting the property on a number of occasions and communicating with the resident by email and telephone about the extent of the works and proposed dates for completion. There is no evidence of poor communication with the landlord’s contractors and no evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling, as it has provided clear instructions to contractors and timely responses to the resident’s complaints.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendation that the landlord:
1. Reconsider its decision to refuse to wallpaper the hallway and bedroom of the property and write to the resident either confirming that this work will be included with the outstanding works, or providing its reasons for refusal with reference to its obligations.