Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (202003333)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003333

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council

2 December 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

  1. The complaint is about the condition of the property when let to the resident.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The property is a 2-bed end of terrace house. The resident is noted to be asthmatic and have anxiety issues.
  2. The Empty Properties Lettable Standard notes conditions properties must meet before they are let. Sanitary fittings will be checked thoroughly to ensure they are in good working order. Plugs and chains to be provided. New toilet seats must be fitted for hygiene reasons. Gardens will be cleared of all rubbish and left in a safe condition. Ponds will be filled in for Health and Safety reasons, but it is not responsible for any landscaping or ornamental features. Any and all patios and footpaths within the boundary of the property will be left in a safe condition. Any and all walls and fences that are the responsibility of the Council will be left in a safe condition. If the property requires decorating it will issue a decorating card for the rooms as necessary. The card is a help towards decorating not to cover full cost.
  3. The Void schedule of works notes before let, photos will be taken and uploaded as a record. The property, including the loft, external storage areas and gardens, must be cleared of all rubbish ready for the new resident. All sanitary fittings must be clean and in working order. General plasterwork to walls and ceiling to be checked in reasonable condition. Fencing and boundary markers must be in good condition, if replacement is required, refer to current fencing policy. Any ponds must be filled in with stone and topped with soil. In general, front, and rear gardens are to be left in a manageable condition.
  4. The landlord’s Complaints Policy has an early resolution stage where it attempts to resolve matters through the service delivery team, where resolution is unsuccessful the complaint is considered formally. Stage 1 responses are then provided within 10 working days, and this can be extended by a further 10 working days.

Summary of Events

  1. The resident considers that the property was not offered in a lettable standard and that there were numerous repairs that were required including to the skirting and plaster.
  2. In February 2020 a report of the property prior to going to void was noted that all rooms were ‘good’, and no clearance was needed to the house or garden. It identified a decorating allowance was needed for the living room, kitchen, hallway, bedrooms, and bathroom. This totalled £200.
  3. On 11 March, the pre void checklist noted holes in the living room and kitchen needed filling, as did behind the toilet. It noted the garden needed clearing including removing the greenhouse. On 23 March there was a national lockdown. The property was signed off on 30 March.
  4. In April, the resident complained to the landlord about the condition of the property and safety of the garden. The landlord advised that the garden paving would be attended to including evening out and rear fencing installed but this could be delayed due to the lockdown restrictions. It noted the surveyor had advised the rest of the property was let in accordance with the void lettable standard.
  5. At the beginning of June, the landlord advised due to the restrictions in place it was still unable to visit the property and requested that the resident provide photos. It advised that the property had been let in line with its voids lettable standard and pre and post void photographs had been taken. Once visits could go ahead, an appointment was made but did not show in the contractor’s diary, so was missed. This was immediately rebooked for the works to be carried out to the garden. The resident remained dissatisfied and requested that her complaint be escalated.
  6. At the end of June, following the maintenance surveyors visit his report noted as follows:
    1. Polly fill was needed for the minor holes in living room walls and kitchen ceiling where the light had been renewed. It would secure the bathroom sliding door, plaster around the toilet and provide keys to the garage door.
    2. No further action was needed to: the fireplace, boiler access cover, boxing,  BT wire (although made safe) and the walls where rewiring had taken place and where wallpaper now removed, was to an acceptable standard.
  7. In July 2020 the landlord raised the works to the garden following the restrictions being lifted, to make it safe, but put on hold works relating to the plastering.
  8. In August 2020 the resident rejected the £200 decorating card offered to replace the expired card noting she had initially been offered £300. She requested that her complaint be considered by someone else. The landlord noted that the property had a rewire and the making good was not the best, with slight depressions, so it had arranged for patch repairs to the damaged areas (pollyfill), which had now been completed. It advised all other areas were let in line with policy and it was not responsible for the condition of the walls following removal of wallpaper. It noted it would not be renewing the whole kitchen ceiling. The landlord advised it would be replacing the £200 decorating card previously provided to the resident, but it needed the old card details in order to cancel it.
  9. In September and October 2020, the landlord and resident discussed the condition of the garden and the landlord advised it would consider the inspection report provided by the surveyor and complete any further recommended works. The resident reiterated that the plastering works to the walls were the landlord’s responsibility to repair and she wanted to escalate her complaint. Further works were completed to the garden.
  10. In November, the resident advised the landlord that its delay in responding to her complaint was taking an effect on her mental health, she wanted a response and the decorating voucher. The landlord acknowledged this and noted it would provide the response and hand deliver the voucher within the week.
  11. On 1 December, the landlord visited the property and provided its stage 1 response the following day. It apologised for the delay in responding and delays in works being competed, explaining the challenges the landlord had faced given the national lockdown.
  12. In response to the condition of the property, it referred to its surveyor’s report in June. It explained it had completed works between August and October, but the ceiling work had been cancelled due to the resident’s expectation that the entire ceiling would be replastered. It noted that it inspected properties to ensure that general plasterwork to walls and ceilings were checked to be in reasonable condition. It advised the garden had been made safe and the pond filled in line with the lettable standard, however it had since gone further and removed the feature.
  13. It accepted that the debris in the garden should have been removed, however noted that the amount currently in situ was far greater than that in the picture taken at void. It noted it would however arrange for this to be cleared and advised that works to the garden had been completed in line with its lettable standard. It confirmed the decorating vouchers offered had always been £200.
  14. The resident escalated her complaint at the end of January 2021.
  15. On 11 February 2021, the landlord provided its final response. It reiterated its apology for the delayed stage 1 response due to the pandemic and lockdown. It advised the stage 1 response had addressed all issues. It considered the photographs provided by the resident dated 28 January 2021 and advised the property was not offered in that condition. It noted the dado rail and skirting boards had been removed after. It acknowledged that the resident stated the skirting boards were rotten but refuted this by providing post inspection photographs.
  16. It reiterated the property was let in line with its lettable standards, the plaster was of sound condition given the age of the property and could be sanded and decorated by the resident. It advised there was no gas leak and the annual gas check the previous week passed. It advised it could resurvey the property to deem if there were any further works it was obligated to complete, upheld the stage 1 response, and advised the resident to contact this service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Voids schedule notes which work should be completed prior to let. It is accepted that the landlord carried out the inspection of the property and identified works which needed to be completed prior to letting the property. Whilst it is accepted that both the report and photographic evidence support that there were no major issues with the plastering works, there is evidence that other works were not completed in line with the schedule or report prior to let.
  2. The void report noted that fencing was required, the garden needed to be cleared and holes in walls filled. Additionally, in the course of the complaint, it is clear that there was rubble and other works which needed clearing in the garden. This should have been carried out prior to the property being let to the resident but was not. The resident therefore had to raise the matter with the landlord.
  3. The Ombudsman would usually deem this a failing, but given that the situation occurred as a result of the national lockdown which began on 23 March 2020, the landlord was limited in the action it could take prior to the resident taking up tenancy at the beginning of April. It is clear that the landlord sought to resolve these issues and complete works in line with the recommendations of  the report, however the speed in which this could happen was determined by Government guidance.
  4. While the resident disputes that the landlord was obligated to repair damage to the walls and flooring, photographic evidence taken prior to let, supports the landlord’s assertion that the property was not let in the condition the resident now complained of. The tenancy agreement notes that residents are responsible for internal decorating and the landlord was not obligated to remove wallpaper. Where damage is caused in the course of decorating, this would not fall to the landlord to repair.
  5. While the resident was dissatisfied that the ‘pond’ had been filled with stones, this was in line with the lettable standard. In any event, the landlord went further and removed what it deemed to be a water feature. This was reasonable, even though the standard makes clear that the landlord is not responsible for landscaping or ornamental features. It is however responsible for making the garden safe. As such, the landlord carried out removal of slabs and replaced this with a path. This was to remove the health and safety trip hazard, in line with its obligations. It is also noted that the void photos showed debris in the garden, and while the landlord advised the current amount was significantly more than that in the photo, it agreed to have this cleared. This was reasonable.
  6. The landlord has provided the resident with the £200 decorating voucher as noted on the void inspection sheet, whilst the resident advises this should have been £300, the Ombudsman has been unable to find any evidence to that effect. The Ombudsman notes that the resident believes there is significant decorating works to be completed, however the landlord is not automatically responsible for works. The offer of decorating vouchers is to assist with works as opposed to covering all works.
  7. In relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint, it is clear that the resident requested that the landlord respond to concerns formally in June 2020. Whilst the landlord sought to address the matters at its early resolution stage once this failed it should have communicated with the resident the next formal steps. The Ombudsman understands the pressures the landlord was facing at the time with the national lockdown; however, the resident should not have had to continuously ask that she be provided with a formal response. It took the landlord 5 months to provide the resident with a stage 1 response and this was significantly over the 20 working days (including an extension), that the landlord was afforded and amounts to service failure. In addition, whilst the landlord accepted this within its formal responses, it did not offer any redress, taking into consideration that the resident had advised the lack of response was having an impact on her. This was unreasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the way the property was let to the resident.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. While there were some outstanding works following the void inspection these were delayed due to the national lockdown and attended to once possible. Evidence on fil also supports that parts of the property were not let in the condition the resident later complained of and as such the landlord was not obligated to carry out the repairs.
  2. The resident requested that her complaint be responded to formally on several occasions. The landlord delayed communications with her, and this resulted in a delayed stage 1 response. The landlord acknowledged this but failed to consider the impact this had on the resident or offer any redress.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within the next four weeks, to pay the resident £100 for the delay in providing the stage 1 response and failure to acknowledge the stress and inconvenience this caused.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reinspect the property, if it has not done so already to determine if there are any further works which it is responsible for and arrange for any such works to be completed.