Basildon Borough Council (202002986)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002986

Basildon Borough Council

15 December 2020

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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak at the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and resides in a bungalow.
2. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms its obligation to “maintain the systems for supplying your water, electricity and gas”. However, it caveats that it does not have to carry out repairs to the above “if you have caused the problem”.
3. The landlord’s tenancy agreement also confirms that the resident has a right to “improve [his] home if you have our written permission and any planning permission you need”. These improvements are to be performed “properly using suitable materials and meeting any relevant building regulations”. It further states that “You must repair and pay for any damage you cause to your home by adding your own fixtures, fittings and improvements.”
4. The landlord’s compensation policy and procedure states that residents are advised to have “their own contents insurance to cover potential losses” and that “claims for damage should initially be passed by the [resident] to [his] contents insurers”. This policy further stipulates that “compensation for damaged belongings will be paid only where the losses result from [the landlord’s] actions or failure to act and only where a negligent act has not occurred”.
5. The landlord’s “comments, compliments and complaints” procedure provides for a three-stage internal complaints process, with responses due within ten working days at each stage. This policy also specifies that complaints are escalated to stage three if “the decision was not made in accordance with the [landlord’s] policy, procedure and standards”.

Summary of events

6. The resident received permission from the landlord on 30 March 2012, after a visit from its surveyor two days previously, to install a new partition wall in the lounge and a mixer tap with shower attachment in the property. It specified that “Any electrical installations must be carried out by a qualified electrician and in accordance with Part P of the Building Regulations.”  The landlord further stated that it “must be supplied with copies of any certificates relating to the gas or electrical installations once the work has been completed”.
7. The landlord cautioned that it would “not be liable for any costs incurred by the applicant” or “for any repairs that are associated with the above works or for any future maintenance”.
8. Following a reported leak in the property, dampness was found in the property as a result of condensation. Consequently, roof vents were fitted to the property on 6 March 2019.
9. The recessed ceiling lights in the property were isolated on 21 June 2019 following a report that the electrics were being tripped. The landlord’s repairs log noted that “some are actually touching joists in the loft so are a fire hazard”. An appointment was made to remove the ceiling lights and their wiring entirely and the resident was informed that this would be rechargeable to him.
10. The work to remove the ceilings lights was not completed as no access to the property could be gained on 17 July 2019.
11. On 14 August 2019 a leak to the roof of the property was logged. This was found to be due to the recently installed roof vents becoming dislodged and the leak had penetrated into the ceiling lights. After the resident provided permission to the landlord to remove the ceiling lights and plaster over the holes on 5 September 2019, the ceiling lights and wiring were removed on 1 October 2019.
12. An appointment for 19 November 2019 to plaster over the holes left by the ceiling light was not completed due to no access.
13. The resident reported to the landlord on 6 April 2020 that a live wire had been left in the loft of the property. The landlord’s repairs log showed that this was attended to the same day to make safe the wire, and follow-on work was required for “further investigation and disconnecting” and to “trace live redundant cable”.
14. On 12 April 2020, the resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord. He relayed that, following the leak he experienced after the roof vents became dislodged, he had sustained damaged to his sofa which he had reported to it. The resident stated that he had been advised by the landlord to claim for the damage on his household insurance and to claim the excess back from it. He advised that he was yet to hear back about this matter over six months later.
15. The resident also raised the matter of the live wire left in the loft. He described being “shocked by some sparks” from the wire which “almost burnt” him and which “could’ve caused a fire” in the property. The resident noted that the worker who subsequently attended to the wire apologised and “admitted… that it was the same wire and he thought they were disconnected”. He wanted to be compensated for both the roof leak and the live wire left in the loft.
16. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 27 April 2020 which partially upheld his complaint. It acknowledged that the roof vents had been “wrongly installed” and requested details of the insurance excess payment incurred by the resident referred to in his stage one complaint, to enable it to consider the request.
17. Regarding the resident’s complaint about the live wire in the loft, the landlord asserted that this was “a result of [his] own incorrectly installed lights” and not its own installation. It stated that its records showed that he carried out this improvement without seeking its permission, noting that he had previously consented to being recharged for the removal of the lights as it had not installed them.
18. The landlord confirmed that, had the resident sought permission for the installation of the ceiling lights, it would have specified that the work should be done by a qualified electrician and it would require a copy of the electrical certificate on completion. As it had not installed the lights, it declined to compensate the resident for the live wire left in the loft. Once the current corona virus restrictions had lifted and routine repair work resumed, the landlord proposed to arrange for the rechargeable repair of the holes left in the resident’s ceiling.
19. The resident emailed the landlord later that day to escalate his complaint to stage two. He asserted that he was given permission for the installation of the ceiling lights on the same visit when he was granted permission to install the partition wall in the property. The resident also stated that the ceiling lights were indeed fitted by an electrician and contended that, despite them being his own installation, this did not make him responsible for the standard of work which left a live wire present in the loft.
20. The resident acknowledged that he had previously agreed to the rechargeable work but stated he would dispute the recharge as he was not responsible for the roof vents becoming dislodged. He attached details of the £50 excess that he paid for his insurance claim.
21. After acknowledging the resident’s escalation request on 27 April 2020, the landlord issued a stage two complaint response the following day. It confirmed that it visited him on 28 March 2012 to discuss his proposed improvements and its records showed no mention of the installation of the electrical ceiling lights.
22. The landlord requested the certificate that the resident’s electrician would have provided upon completion of the work and asserted that the ceiling lights had not been installed in accordance with its conditions and therefore “exacerbated the work” that it needed to carry out following the leak.
23. The landlord offered to pay the £50 excess incurred by the resident in respect of his insurance claim and repeated that it would contact him after the lifting of the corona virus restrictions to arrange for the rechargeable repairs to make good the holes left in the ceiling from the removal of the lights.
24. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 May 2020 to contend that the disconnection of the ceiling lights was necessitated by the leak caused by the dislodged roof vents and therefore it would be its responsibility to compensate him for the lights. He asserted that it was irrelevant whether the ceiling lights were installed in accordance with its conditions or not as it was its responsibility to make the lights and wiring safe.
25. The resident advised he would obtain a copy of the electrical certificate from the installation and provide this again to the landlord, contending that the omission of the ceiling lights and the electrical certificate from its records was due to its failure in recordkeeping.
26. The landlord replied to the resident on 7 May 2020 to advise that it had not received an electrical certificate from him. It clarified that the leak attributed to the dislodged roof vents was reported on 14 August 2019. This was after the resident reported an issue with his electrics tripping on 20 June 2019 and his discovery that the lights had “singed the loft insulation”. The lights were then isolated the following day as they were found to be a hazard. The landlord reiterated that the lights had not been installed in accordance with its conditions.
27. The resident emailed the landlord later on 7 May 2020 to request the escalation of his complaint. He contended that the reason for the ceiling lights “burning” was because of the leak from the roof vents and that they were disconnected because of the leak penetrating into the lights. The resident stated that his complaint was that the landlord’s operative had left a live wire in the loft and asserted that the lights had not been reported prior to the leak.
28. After acknowledging the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage three on 8 May 2020, it issued a final response to him on 18 May 2020 in which it declined to progress the complaint to stage three of its complaints process on the basis that he had provided no new information. It noted that he had yet to provide and electrical certificate for the installation of the ceiling lights and that he had since informed them that the lights were installed by him “and a friend”.
29. The landlord emphasised that permission was “only granted for this type of work to be carried out by a qualified electrician and in accordance with Part P of the Building Regulations”. It highlighted that, despite the resident’s contention that he had been provided permission by a representative of the landlord to install the ceiling lights, there was no record of this. The landlord further stressed that the resident was responsible for any associated works resulting from improvements to the property.
30. The landlord confirmed that it would not offer any further compensation other than the £50 it had paid to the resident’s rent account already on 1 May 2020 for his insurance excess and repeated that it would arrange for the rechargeable repair to the holes in his ceiling once corona virus restrictions allowed.
31. In an email to the landlord on 23 May 2020, the resident stated that his outstanding complaint was that the landlord had not correctly removed the live wire from his loft, and he contended this was a failure on its part.
32. The landlord confirmed to this Service on 24 July 2020 that work was undertaken that same day to address the holes left in his ceiling by the removal of the ceiling lights.

Assessment and findings

33. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident, above at point 2, confirms that it is responsible for repairs to the electrical wiring of the property unless the resident “caused the problem”. Point 3 above also clarifies that the resident is to repair any damage caused to the property by his own improvements.
34. While there is dispute over whether permission was received for the installation of the ceiling lights, as noted in the resident’s emails of 27 April and 2 May 2020, it is not disputed that the ceiling lights were installed as an improvement by the resident and the live wire reported on 6 April 2020 was part of this installation.
35. The landlord’s repairs log shows that the ceiling lights were identified as “a fire hazard” on 21 June 2019, nearly two months prior to the resident’s report of a leak on 14 August 2019. This confirms that the ceiling lights were identified as requiring rectification prior to the leak. As set out in paragraph 33 the responsibility for correcting the ceiling light installation was the resident’s.
36. It is noted that no access was gained for a subsequent appointment to remove the ceiling lights entirely on 17 July 2019, which had been relayed to the resident on 21 June 2019 as his responsibility.
37. It was reasonable for the landlord to respond to the report of an electrical problem on 21 June 2019, as this was in accordance with its responsibility to maintain the electrical system, outlined in point 2 above. It was also reasonable for it to attend within 24 hours to isolate the ceiling lights on 21 June 2019 and to make safe the live wire on 6 April 2020, as these issues presented a danger to the resident or the property and therefore constituted emergency repairs.
38. There is no evidence that permission was sought from the landlord for the installation of the ceiling lights, nor that an electrical certificate was provided to the landlord. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect the landlord to be knowledgeable about the scope of the work carried out by the resident to install the lights. The landlord can only attend to repairs that it has knowledge of, and the lack of prior information about the installation of the ceiling lights would prevent it from carrying repairs in an informed manner.
39. Therefore, the landlord responded reasonably by attending to make safe the wiring on 21 June 2019 and 6 April 2020. It was also reasonable for it to only compensate the resident for his insurance excess of £50 in its complaints responses on 27 and 28 April, and 18 May 2020 as this was in line with its compensation policy and procedure above at point 4, where damage had resulted from its actions.
40. The landlord’s decision to decline to compensate the resident for the live wire in its complaint responses on 27 and 28 April, and 18 May 2020, was also in accordance with its compensation policy and procedure above at point 4, as any detriment that resulted from the live wire in the loft was a consequence of installations that were the resident’s responsibility. Therefore, the landlord has responded reasonably to this aspect of the complaint and there is no evidence of any failure on its part.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord considers that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord took reasonable actions to make safe the installation that was the resident’s responsibility and made an appropriate offer of compensation in accordance with its compensation policy and procedure.