Yorkshire Housing Limited (202011216)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011216

Yorkshire Housing Limited

7 September 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:
1. the landlord’s response to a faulty door mechanism in the main entrance and the resident’s fire safety concerns.
2. information provided to the resident around the uncapping of gas and electricity.
3. antisocial behaviour (ASB).
4. the resident not being provided with decoration vouchers.
5. parking and ASB issues affecting the resident’s neighbours.
6. the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 36 of the Scheme, complaint (e) above falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 36 of the Scheme states: “The person complaining, or on whose behalf a complaint is made must have been, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, adversely affected by those actions or omissions in respect of their application for, or occupation of, property.”
The resident stated that his neighbours were being bullied to give up their parking spaces and asked the landlord to put in place accessible parking for the use of his disabled neighbours. The resident’s concerns in relation to this matter and how it is affecting his neighbours is acknowledged. However, in line with paragraph 36 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider these matters as the parking issues have not adversely affected him in the occupation of his property and there is no evidence that he had authorisation to pursue a formal complaint on behalf of his neighbours.

Background and summary of events

The resident commenced his introductory tenancy on 6 March 2020.
The landlord’s guide to becoming a tenant includes instructions to uncap gas and set up utilities after sign–up. It states: “We have capped off the gas supply to the property for safety reasons. The gas supply will therefore need uncapping and this can only be carried out during normal office hours. Once you have a moving in date you can either arrange this yourself by calling 0345 366 4404 during office hours, or your Neighbourhood Office can arrange this for you.” The guide also states that two working days’ notice is required.
The landlord’s void management policy states: “All gas installations and fixed electrical systems will be checked and passed as safe before any tenant is allowed to use them.”
Prior to signing the tenancy agreement, the resident requested a week’s grace as he wished to fix the flooring, curtains and paintwork. On 4 March 2020, the landlord advised that it was unable to agree a grace period and that he would be charged rent on the first day of the tenancy. While it said that it would have another look at the property, it noted that the surveyor had not deemed it to be in a poor state.
In October 2020, the resident raised the following concerns with the landlord:
1. On 22 September 2020, he was locked in his block for 3.5 hours, owing to a faulty door mechanism. The resident expressed concern about what might happen should the door fail to release during a fire, with no other exit in place. He stated that he had tried to raise this with management, but his call was not returned.
2. The gas was not uncapped until 24 March 2020. As a result, he was not able to move in until April 2020.
3. He had yet to receive the vouchers the landlord promised when he expressed dissatisfaction about the decoration of the flat.
4. He had heard racist and homophobic comments being made by tenants. He was also concerned that a tenant had bought an air rifle and behaved in a threatening manner. The resident stated that a neighbour had filmed him and others in the car park. Additionally, local neighbours were having loud music parties and the supermarket next door had broken delivery restrictions.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 12 November 2020. It stated that it had instructed a specialist contractor to assess the suitability of the locking mechanism in place and that it would keep him updated about its consideration of his request for secondary doors as a means of escape. The landlord apologised that it did not contact the resident on 22 September 2020 as requested. It explained that it had arranged for a surveyor to attend urgently and did not believe that any further action was required after she reported back. It was not aware that the resident wished to discuss his thoughts about fire safety.
The landlord advised that there was no current requirement for extra communal doors under fire regulations. It assured the resident that the building was built to the regulations in place at the time. It further explained that the building was designed to contain fire and avoid spread. As such, it had a ‘stay put’ policy for when fires broke out in flats.
The landlord stated that no vouchers were offered as the decoration of the flat was deemed acceptable; however it acknowledged that there might have been some miscommunication. It therefore wished to offer the resident £35 in vouchers to contribute towards decoration.
On 18 November 2020, the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated. He stated:
1. He had asked management multiple times to contact him after 22 September 2020; the missed call back was not an isolated incident.
2. He believed that it made sense for the building to have an emergency fire exit.
3. The surveyor removed the lock mechanism pending a visit from the engineers. He believed that an adjacent block had had its door replaced and believed that a site inspection in his block should have occurred around that time.
4. There was no miscommunication about the vouchers; they were offered to him when he commented on the patchy grey matte paint that had been left by the previous tenant.
5. The response did not address the capped services. He was told at the time that someone would be in touch to reinstate the gas and electricity.
6. The response did not address the ASB he had raised. He also complained that a neighbour was “orchestrating several different bullying tactics indirectly” and that he witnessed drug dealing. The resident noted that his neighbours held parties during unsocial hours and that he had put up with noise from supermarket staff using the fire door and commencing deliveries early in the morning.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 3 December 2020. It noted that it had been in contact with him regarding his complaint and had decided to focus the response on the issues he had discussed with staff.
1. In respect of the entrance to the block, the landlord advised that the locking mechanism would be changed to include internal thumb turns, which would reduce the need for a secondary exit. It would continue to update him on this matter.
2. The landlord stated that it would contact the supermarket regarding the claims of nuisance and asked for supporting evidence of the ASB he reported.
3. It apologised for the condition of the property and the service the resident received when signing for the tenancy. In recognition of his experience, it offered him one week’s free rent.
On 3 December 2020, the resident responded with the following:
1. When he inspected the property, he asked for a week’s grace to redecorate and was told that this was not possible but that he would be sent some decoration vouchers. The resident recalled saying to the landlord that it would cost roughly £150 to redecorate.
2. He paid upfront for a month’s rent but both the gas and electric were capped. He did not think it was legal to require him to pay for an uninhabitable property.
3. A gas safety check was not carried out until 24 March 2020.
The landlord issued an additional response on 11 December 2020, following a telephone discussion with the resident. It advised that:
1. The week of free rent it had offered was at the current rate of rent and was inclusive of the current service charge. As an additional gesture of goodwill, it wished to make an increased offer of £85 for the distress caused by the faulty door mechanism. It stated that this could be in the form of decorating vouchers, a direct payment or a combination of both.
2. It would keep the resident updated about the progress of his concerns about the supermarket and investigate the other issues he had raised in relation to the private flats.
3. It had ordered new locks that would allow doors to be opened in the event of a power outage. The Health and Safety Team would remind all residents in the block of the ‘stay put’ advice and tenants would receive instructions on how to use the new door entry mechanism once it has been fitted.
The resident continued to pursue his concerns through an MP. The landlord’s reply to the MP on 22 December 2020 includes a more detailed explanation of its position in relation to the utility supplies and decoration. It explained: “Customers who move into [the landlord’s] properties are asked to contact utility companies to establish a supply. Immediately following this we then return to the property to complete safety checks. This was explained to [the resident] at the viewing on Monday 2nd March 2020 and also the subsequent signing of the tenancy. This is standard practice within social housing to ensure we prioritise the safety of our customers and a gas supply isn’t left open at an empty property.” The landlord further explained that the resident signed the tenancy on 6 March 2020 and contacted it on 20 March 2020 to ask that it test, supply and uncap the gas. It stated that it returned on 24 March 2020 to complete this, which it felt was acceptable given that the country was in lockdown.
The landlord did not agree that the property was let to the resident in an uninhabitable condition and noted that the property was assessed to be at a lettable standard.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s complaint responses show that it took the resident’s fire safety concerns seriously. While it ultimately chose not to install a secondary exit, this was a considered decision that took into account building regulations, its ‘stay put’ policy, and the benefits of changing the locking mechanism of the entrance. Its offer of £85 in compensation for the faulty door mechanism appropriately recognised the resident’s distressing experience of being unable to leave the block when the door would not release. The Ombudsman considers that this amount also reflects the inconvenience caused to the resident for the missed call backs about fire safety.
The landlord did not respond in detail to the resident regarding his concerns about the uncapping of the gas, and it would have been reasonable to do so. Although the landlord offered the resident a week’s rent free of charge, it did not explain its usual procedure and what it believed had occurred until the MP became involved.
The ‘guide to becoming a tenant’ makes it clear that it is the landlord’s practice to cap the gas supply in void properties. It provides a number for the new tenant to arrange to have the gas uncapped and also outlines the option of having the Neighbourhood Office arrange it. As the conversations that occurred during the lettings process were undocumented, it is not possible to ascertain the reasonableness of the resident’s impression that the landlord would initiate contact about reinstating the utilities.
However, from the evidence that is available, the resident did delay in raising the issue with the landlord, and it is not clear why. Given that the landlord uncapped the gas within its two-working day timescale after it received contact from the resident, it seems likely that the supply would have been reinstated sooner if the resident had made contact with the landlord earlier. Therefore, the landlord was not wholly responsible for the resident being unable to move into the property for a month.
There is some dispute about whether the resident was offered vouchers to decorate the flat. The resident strongly recalls a discussion with the landlord regarding the provision of vouchers; however the landlord denied that it had agreed to such an arrangement. Email correspondence from March 2020 shows that the landlord considered the interior was in an acceptable condition and did not mention gift vouchers. In the absence of supporting evidence to the contrary, the Ombudsman is unable to find that the landlord failed to follow through on a promise to issue vouchers for decoration. It is noted that the landlord offered the resident £35 in vouchers as a goodwill gesture which, in the Ombudsman’s view, was a reasonable way of resolving the misunderstanding.
The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence that ASB concerns were raised prior to the formal complaint. In the first instance, it is appropriate for reports of ASB to be investigated through the ASB procedure rather than the complaint process. On receiving a report of ASB, the landlord has a duty to investigate the matter and to consider what other evidence there is to corroborate the report. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord sought further evidence and information from the resident. While a fuller complaint response could have included information about how to raise ASB concerns through the appropriate channels, no detriment was caused to the resident as the landlord appeared willing to pass on any evidence of the alleged ASB. Additionally, the landlord agreed to speak with the supermarket about the disruption caused by its staff, despite having limited powers to deal with behaviour not caused by its tenants.
The resident has complained to the Ombudsman about the landlord’s complaint handling. The Ombudsman notes that there were no significant delays in the complaint process and that it spoke to the resident in between its written responses. In an effort to resolve the resident’s outstanding concerns, the landlord also issued an additional response following its stage two reply and engaged with queries from the resident’s MP. As detailed in paragraph 23 above, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide more information when responding to the resident about the capped gas; however it did offer the resident compensation, and provided clarification about its process when responding to the resident’s MP. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that the landlord has taken proportionate steps to put things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to:
1. its response to the faulty door mechanism in the main entrance and the resident’s fire safety concerns.
2. the information provided to the resident around the uncapping of gas and electricity.
3. the ASB.
4. the resident not being provided with decoration vouchers.
5. its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s decision not to install a secondary exit was reasonable as it was not required by fire safety regulations. Additionally, the need for an additional exit was minimised by both the ‘stay put’ policy and the change in door mechanism. The compensation offered to the resident for the resident’s distressing experience with the faulty door mechanism also adequately compensated the resident for the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s missed call backs about fire safety.
There was a misunderstanding about who would initiate contact about the uncapping of the gas. However, the evidence shows that the matter could have been resolved sooner if it had been reported by the resident earlier. Therefore, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to decline to cover the entirety of the rent between the commencement of the tenancy agreement and the date the resident moved in.
As the ASB concerns did not appear to have been raised previously and limited information was provided about the incidents, it was appropriate for the landlord to request evidence of the ASB to enable it to act.
There is no record of the resident being offered decoration vouchers; therefore, it was not unreasonable that the landlord had not issued any prior to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s responses were issued in a timely manner and it communicated with the resident in between its written responses. Although the landlord should have explicitly explained its position when responding to the resident about the capped gas, it had made a reasonable offer to the resident for its perceived failings, and later provided clarification to the resident’s MP.

Recommendations

The evidence provided to the Ombudsman does not suggest that the resident has accepted the landlord’s offer of redress to date. It is therefore recommended that within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should contact the resident and re-offer:
1. £35 in gift vouchers.
2. £85 for the distress caused by the faulty door mechanism and lack of follow-up with phone calls.
3. The equivalent of one week’s rent (including service charge) for the property, as at 11 December 2020.