Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (201913135)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913135

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

28 February 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 decision not to carry out requested adaptations to the chimney.
2. The landlord’s response to the reports about the servicing of the boiler.
3. The landlord’s response to the reports of repair issues at the property.
4. The landlord’s response to the reports about the neighbour’s behaviour.
5. The landlord’s response to the request for the installation of a hardstand at the property.

Background and summary of events

The resident has lived at the property since 8 May 2017, and has had a sole tenancy since 18 December 2018. The property is a two bedroom semi detached bungalow.
On 10 July 2018 the resident wrote to the landlord to report radio noise from his neighbour’s property. The landlord carried out an investigation and concluded that the noise did not constitute a nuisance. The landlord’s case notes showed that the resident was advised to stop sending letters to the neighbour’s home.
On 12 September 2018 the resident wrote to the landlord to report numerous incidents of threatening language by his neighbour while he had been in his garden and that on four occasions this had been witnessed by the landlord’s employees. On 16 September 2018 the resident wrote to the landlord to report that his neighbour had been dumping rubbish at the property. On 18 September 2018 the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging reports of ASB and enclosing nuisance monitoring forms.
On 25 September 2018 the resident wrote to the landlord to report that his neighbour had been whistling at him when he went outside his property.
On 29 October 2018 the landlord wrote to the resident stating that, when the landlord’s staff had attended the property, it had witnessed a disagreement between the resident and the neighbour in relation to the fence but had not seen any threats towards the resident. It requested more information be provided to support the investigation. It noted that, regarding the noise complained about, neither whistling nor the radio noise would be classed as a tenancy breach unless the latter was particularly loud. The letter included nuisance monitoring sheets as attachments which the landlord asked the resident to complete to help gather evidence.
On 5 November 2018 the resident wrote to the landlord noting that he did not intend to fill out any forms recording the ASB, given he had previously reported it to the landlord.
On 2 January 2019 the ASB case was closed after a visit by the landlord to the resident’s property.
On 8 January 2019 the resident’s solicitors submitted a letter of claim for disrepair.
On 28 March 2019 the resident had an appointment booked for the landlord to inspect the property, but this was cancelled by the resident. Another appointment for 30 March 2019 was also cancelled. The landlord stated that it attempted to make other attempts to rearrange the appointment but was unable to so closed the file.
On 4 June 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that the neighbour’s dog was fouling in the neighbour’s yard.
On 20 June 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging his reports of ASB and enclosing nuisance monitoring forms and guidance on how to complete them.
On 5 July 2019 the resident wrote a letter to the landlord stating that he had been threatened by his neighbour who had wanted to fight him in front of his property. The resident requested copies of the correspondence sent to the neighbour.
On 8 July 2019 the resident sent a building surveyor’s report to the landlord.
On 9 July 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging his reports of ASB and enclosing nuisance monitoring forms and guidance on how to complete them.
On 22 July 2019 the landlord’s legal team wrote to the resident in response to the letters of 8 and 10 July 2019. It stated that the housing disrepair claim was closed after the 28 March 2019 appointment was cancelled. The legal team had asked the resident to set out which repair works he believed remained outstanding. However it had been advised by staff that the resident had denied access to the property at a recent appointment to investigate the necessary works which prevented them being progressed. It noted that the resident was obligated to grant it access to carry out repairs under the terms of the tenancy agreement.
On 8 August 2019 the landlord’s staff inspected the property to prepare a report of survey and inspection of disrepair. On 2 September 2019 the floor in the walk-in shower was relayed. On the same day the landlord emailed its contractors to raise 17 jobs for the property, including the following:
1. Minor pointing was required to the ridge tiles, roof valleys, side and front verges as well as to the chimney stack. The stack also had damaged capping that needed repairing and the lead flashing needed redress.
2. The guttering, fall pipes and drainage runs all needed clearing, with the gullies to be checked to ensure free flow of rainwater and the sealing of all gutter jobs.
3. Clearing all strip drains of debris and checking the flows, cutting back the fall pipe to the rear elevation.
4. Checking the loft insulation was adequate and laid correctly.
5. Renewing the rear door double glazed door cassette and the flooring to the bathroom making sure the correct falls are installed.
6. Installation of an extractor fan in the kitchen.
7. A new water main was to be installed in the property within the next year’s programme, following water pressure tests which indicated that the pressure was borderline.
On 23 August 2019 the resident requested a reply in response to his letter of 5 July 2019, which he had not received.
On 29 August 2019 the resident’s solicitors wrote to the neighbour in response to the neighbour’s threatening violence, repeated whistling at the resident and following the resident’s movements on the other side of the fence. It was noted that the behaviour was unacceptable and causing distress to the resident, and the letter requested the neighbour desist from the behaviour.
On 3 September 2019 the landlord discussed the ASB reports with the resident on the telephone.
On 4 September 2019 the landlord issued a stage one complaint response regarding the nuisance and ASB issues, setting out:
1. The resident’s letter of 5 July 2019 was used to inform a nuisance case against the neighbour, and the landlord was of the opinion that appropriate actions had been taken against the neighbour. It had taken this action in conjunction with the local police. For confidentiality reasons the landlord could not provide the details of this action to the resident.
2. The investigation noted that the letter had not been acknowledged nor was the resident kept updated regarding the process of the investigation into the nuisance and ASB issues. It apologised for this, noting it had spoken to staff members and reminded them that residents should be kept updated on a fortnightly basis while such a case remains open.
On 13 September 2019 the resident sent a letter to the landlord seeking £13,331.44 for costs associated with the previous disrepair claim.
On 23 September 2019, while preparing for roofing works on the property, the landlord discovered that the resident had installed a gas fire. The fire was noted to be in poor condition, and it was condemned and capped the same day. The repair system recorded that chimney works were carried out at the same time that the gas fire was discovered. The resident stated that it had been serviced within the year. The fire was disconnected from the gas supply pipework and had a warning notice attached, with the contractor noting a gas inspector needed to attend promptly with the suggestion it be removed and an electric suite fitted.
On 27 September 2019 the landlord’s legal team responded to the resident’s 13 September 2019 letter. It refuted the cost of works claimed by the resident, denied the property was uninhabitable, did not admit liability and stated that it was premature of the resident to instruct an expert prior to him receiving the landlord’s report. The landlord disputed the resident’s claim that there had been a delay which had caused him to seek a building survey of the property.
On 12 October 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord to state that the neighbour’s dog was fouling in the garden, as well as barking and causing a nuisance.
On 18 October 2019 a new ASB case was opened following the resident reporting that the neighbour’s dog was fouling. The landlord wrote to the resident on that day providing it with nuisance monitoring forms. The landlord undertook several visits to the property but found no evidence of dog fouling, and the case was closed on 5 December 2019.
On 21 November 2019 the landlord’s staff met with the resident following the completion of the 17 repair jobs set out in the 2 September 2019 email. The resident signed a quality control inspection record, which included a note that a water main would be installed in 2020.
On 25 November 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that the resident was of the opinion that the flooring in the level access shower had been installed incorrectly. The landlord stated that the flooring had been installed according to its specifications and that upon inspection it had found the flooring to be satisfactory. It noted that it had been agreed to install a new water main to the property which the resident would be contacted about once a date had been agreed on. The letter noted that the landlord would pay the resident £100 as a goodwill gesture to cover the costs of the gutter guard, cleaning fluid and the damaged plant in the front garden. The resident signed the letter confirming acceptance of the goodwill gesture.
On 5 December 2019 the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property to inspect the boiler. It told the resident that there was no evidence that the condensate pipe had been installed incorrectly, however it made the decision to change the condensate arrangement to its own purpose made soakaway to remove any ambiguity as to whether it was installed correctly or not.
On 6 December 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident in response to his request for a hardstand to be installed at the property. It noted that the disabled facility allocation grant budget for that financial year had been exhausted, and that work would be carried out to install the hardstand at his property in the new financial year.
On 12 December 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that there remained outstanding works in the property according to the surveyor’s report he had provided of 8 July 2019. On 16 December 2019 the landlord replied to the resident noting that each of the repair issues set out in the resident’s surveyor’s report were completed in November 2019, except for the connection of a new water supply which it had agreed to install in 2020. It requested that the resident identify the specific issues to allow him to investigate whether any work was outstanding and to carry out a proper review as part of the complaint.
On 17 December 2019 the landlord provided the resident with a copy of his most recent gas certificate in line with a request by the resident.
On 18 December 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident requesting that he provide specific details of the issues he remained unhappy with. It noted it could not reasonably investigate the complaint and give a resolution to the concerns until it had the details of it, and that the complaint had been closed/suspended pending its clarification.
On 20 December 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that the lounge chimney was not fit for purpose, and that it had not been tested or maintained properly over the years. He stated that it required the flue checking for compliance to required standards, and where necessary for work to be carried out. He stated that all costs including paint work and wall paper would be at the cost of the landlord.
On 24 December 2019 the resident replied to the landlord, stating that the latter already had the surveyor’s report which set out the outstanding issues, although referencing that there was a “full file” with further information on these. On the same day, the resident wrote a separate letter to the landlord stating that his lounge chimney was not fit for purpose.
On 26 December 2019 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord that his gas boiler was not fit for purpose.
On 7 January 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident on the telephone about the elements of the complaint.
On 8 January 2020 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response regarding the complaints that the chimney in the lounge was not fit for purpose, and that the boiler had not been installed to the manufacturer’s instructions and serviced on an annual basis.
It stated that it was not upholding the complaint, noting the actions that had taken place during its attendance at the property on 5 December 2019. While noting that the condensate arrangement had been changed on this day, it confirmed that the previous set-up would not have posed any danger to life or property. It noted that an engineer would always carry out a combustion gas analysis during the annual servicing. If the readings fell within required tolerances according to current British standards, as was the case here, the boiler would not require a strip down service. It had therefore adhered to the relevant policy and standards and carried out the necessary work.
Regarding the gas fire flue:
1. When the resident took the tenancy in April 2017 an electric fire suite was fitted in the property. The chimney was no longer in use nor connected to a gas appliance, meaning it was not subject to any gas safety checks.
2. It was noted however that the resident installed a gas fire without approval from the landlord. It was not correctly installed and was condemned by a gas engineer when the landlord became aware of it, and this was confirmed during an inspection in October 2019.
3. It was not the policy of the landlord to offer replacement fires (gas or electric), and so it would not be recommissioning the chimney nor replacing the fire. It concluded that it had provided an electric fire suite and gas boiler that were both correctly installed and that the servicing of the boiler was in line with British standards. On the basis that it had followed its policy, it did not uphold the complaint.
4. It noted that should the resident wish to have a gas fire installed it would need to be done at a cost to the resident, including the renewal of the flue liner and back box. The fire would need to be brand new as the landlord did not allow the installation of second hand gas heating appliances, and the work would need to be carried out as per its tenant alteration process.
On 14 January 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord “regarding the chimney and boiler”. On 15 January 2020 the landlord attended the property to attempt to carry out a thermal imaging test to assess whether there were any issues with heat insulation in the property. It noted there were some apparent issues with this, but that there was evidence that heat insulating was installed in the past.
On 17 January 2020 the resident contacted the Ombudsman stating that he believed his boiler had never been serviced and that the landlord declined to provide him with service records. He noted that the chimney needed structural work and the landlord would not carry this out until the resident arranged and provided the landlord with a structural engineer’s report at his own cost.
On 24 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident requesting clarification of which repair issues remained outstanding. It offered to attend the property to establish the repair issues, which would allow it to then carry out a complaint investigation on those points.
On 28 January 2020 the landlord’s internal emails noted that the connection of the new water supply was progressing, with the ground works having been done and the supply pipe laid. The landlord was waiting for the local water supplier to connect the supply, and it was noted there were significant delays with the latter adhering to timescales though this was outside the landlord’s control.
On 30 January 2020 the landlord met with the resident to clarify the issues of the complaint. The resident stated the boiler needed annual servicing, and that the gas test was insufficient. The resident raised the issues of the chimney again, and the landlord confirmed with him that he had not requested permission from the landlord before installing the gas fire. The resident acknowledged that he knew he was required to get permission from the landlord prior to carrying out an alteration to the property.
The landlord told the resident that it understood all the outstanding issues to have been dealt with. The resident stated that the remaining issues were:
1. Insulation requirements which were not being met and causing heat loss. He wanted the landlord to do a test of the property.
2. Problems with water pressure. The resident was aware that works were being undertaken but considered the landlord to be at fault for the delay, rather than the water supplier. The landlord checked the walk-in shower room, turning on the shower and noted it “delivered a powerful blast of water”.
3. The resident stated that there was insufficient drainage from the walk-in shower, which the resident stated was a wet room. The landlord noted that the resident was not closing the shower curtain in using the shower and advised him to do so to minimise the water escaping.
4. Continuing issues of ASB with the neighbour continuing to address and whistle at him. The resident noted that he was not reporting the ASB, considering this to be a waste of time, and that he had not reported it to the police but to a solicitor instead. The landlord discussed the difficulty of proving the intent behind the whistling with the resident.
On 31 January 2020 the police contacted the landlord in response to an enquiry by the latter. It noted that it had no records of reports made by the resident on its system in relation to reporting neighbour issues.
On 25 February 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord seeking an update as to when the hardstand would be installed.
On 5 March 2020 the landlord provided its stage two complaint response. It set out a chronology of the relevant events related to each complaint and its response to each:
1. Regarding the gas boiler and the annual servicing, the engineer will always carry out a combustion gas analysis, using a flue gas analyser. It noted that if the readings fell within the required tolerances the boiler does not require a strip down service, which was in line with current British Standards. It noted the engineer would be expected to check all operating pressures and record them along with flue readings on the Landlord’s Gas Safety Record. It stated that 100% of these records were checked for technical correctness.
2. Regarding the alleged anti-social behaviour from a neighbour, it had been noted that it was difficult to prove intent behind whistling by the neighbour. The resident had intimated that action he and the landlord had taken had seemed to largely stop the whistling, although another isolated incident had occurred. The resident had stated that he was largely not reporting the issues to the landlord or the police considering it to be a waste of time.

It noted that it required evidence to take action against the neighbour and had provided opportunities such as the nuisance monitoring forms for the resident to complete. It acknowledged that the process was frustrating, but the resident’s decision not to supply evidence to the landlord limited the action it could take. There were also counter claims from the neighbour, so this made it more difficult to confirm the sequence of events. It noted there had been at least two visits by the police to the resident’s property which contributed to a view that the resident had, in part, contributed to the nuisance issue. It noted there was not enough to take action against the neighbour.

Regarding the disrepair issues with the boiler, it had set out its position that the maintenance programme was adequate in line with British standards. The resident had expressed that these standards were irrelevant, as well as the gas servicing records that the landlord had provided to him. The landlord’s records disagreed with this potion, noting that the annual gas servicing had taken place every year.
Regarding the flue in the living room allegedly not being fit for purpose, the landlord had already established that the resident had installed a gas fire without the landlord’s permission. The fire was condemned on 23 September 2019 when it was discovered by the landlord, and the landlord had confirmed that the chimney was no longer in use and therefore not subject to gas safety regulations. It was the resident’s unauthorised actions which had caused the issue. The landlord’s decision not to go to the expense of making the flue fit for a gas fire was reasonable, given it had installed a functional electric fire. It noted the resident could apply for retrospective permission to install a gas fire at his own expense which would mean providing a flue that was fit for purpose and met gas regulations.
Regarding the other outstanding repair issues:
1. The property’s EPC rating had been raised by the resident as a concern, and he considered it likely that the property did not meet the standard. The landlord had investigated this and noted that the rating was acceptable and had been reviewed a few years earlier which was in line with the standard procedure. An inspection had also been carried out at the property where it was established that “nothing unusual” was occurring in terms of the heating insulation.
2. The water pressure in the property had been found to be low to borderline, and it had been agreed with the resident that a new supply would be installed directly to the resident’s property. The resident had signed a quality control inspection form that stated this. It noted that there was no evidence of previous tenants reporting issues with low pressure. It noted that there were some delays which were coming from the water supplier and that the work would be finalised as soon as possible. It had noted that there was a good flow of water and powerful flow from the shower when it had carried out an inspection. It did not uphold the complaint that the landlord was delaying the installation rather than the water supplier, noting that the resident had a supply of water while this was being done.
3. According to the resident, the water drainage in the walk-in shower was inadequate, despite the landlord noting that the floor had been relayed on 2 September 2019. The landlord clarified that the facility was a walk-in shower, not a wet room and was not designed for open showering. It had inspected the area with the resident present and noted that the resident needed to close the shower curtain which would assist with the issue. The amount of water remaining after the test was not sufficient for it to recommend that the floor should be lifted, and it expected the amount to be minimal if the shower curtain was used properly.

The landlord concluded that there had been no service failure and the resident was not entitled to compensation.
On 19 March 2020 the landlord’s internal emails with contractors noted that it had been contacting the water supplier for a number of months in an attempt to “swap over the services”. It was noted the connection date had been arranged for 23 March 2020, and that the contractor had no control over the timetables of the water authority who owned the asset in question.
On 20 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that the water supply would be finalising its part of the installation works on 23 March 2020, which would allow the landlord’s contractors to finalise the works shortly after that date.
The water supply was connected by 24 March 2020.
On 27 March 2020 the resident requested that a complaint be raised regarding the delay in installing a hardstand at the property.
On 7 April 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that it had received his complaint about the delay in installing a hardstand. It noted that it would not be accepting the request to raise a complaint, given the resident had already been advised that the disabled facility grant allocation was finite and had been oversubscribed for 2019/2020. This meant the work on the hardstand had been allocated to the 2020/2021 financial year, and the landlord intended to complete the work within the first quarter. It noted that it nevertheless had a number of projects needing to be completed as disabled facility grant works from the previous year, as well as the fact that the Covid-19 pandemic was significantly delaying works.
On 15 April 2020 the resident rang the landlord to state that the neighbour’s dog was barking for hours on end which was disturbing him.
On 22 April 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident noting the resident’s request that the shower be checked after the new water mains installation. It advised that due to the Covid-19 pandemic it was only undertaking emergency repairs for the foreseeable future. The shower could be checked, if there was an issue, once it was safe to do so. It also reminded the resident that when he had previously spoken to the Contracts, Investment and Compliance Team, he had said he did not want inspector in the home until at least September or when the outbreak had been suppressed. It noted it did not accept the correspondence as a formal complaint and stated that it had inspected the shower room when it investigated the stage two complaint finding that there was no evidence of any issue which reasonably could be considered to put the resident’s life at risk.
On 30 April 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging the report of ASB and enclosing nuisance monitoring forms.
On 16 June 2020 the landlord attended the resident’s property to discuss the design of the hardstand and to assess where it could be built.
In July 2020 the landlord attempted to commence work on installing the hardstand at the resident’s property, but its notes indicate that the resident had blocked the drive to stop access to the contractor on 9 July 2020. A telephone call was made to the resident who expressed that he was unhappy with the design of the hardstand, and wanted a different style installed which would cost significantly more. The landlord advised him that this was not possible given the limitations of the disabilities grant budget.
On 16 July 2020 the landlord finished installing the hardstand though the resident would not permit it to complete the crossing that was meant to go with it.
On 28 July 2020 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response in regards to some issues that had more recently been raised by the resident, linked to the previous complaint responses:
1. The resident’s reports regarding nuisance from the neighbour’s dog were historical reports that had already been addressed, and any new issues would be addressed as appropriate.
2. The issue with the shower had previously been dealt with and a new supply had been fitted to the resident’s home.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the following:
1. Non-urgent responsive repairs should be completed within a typical response time of 28 calendar days.
2. Cyclical maintenance on heating systems etc. will be carried out on an annual basis in accordance with regulatory standards. Gas appliances and flues will be checked for safety at least every 12 months with any remedial action required to be carried out by an approved contractor.
3. Residents who wish to undertake repairs or improvements to their property must seek and be granted permission by the landlord before undertaking the work.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a three stage complaint process:
1. At stage one, a complaint will be acknowledged within three working days of receipt, with a formal response provided within ten working days
2. At stage two, a complaint will be acknowledged within three working days of receipt, with a formal response provided within 25 working days
3. At stage three, a complaint will be acknowledged within three working days of receipt, with a panel hearing arranged within 20 working days which the resident can attend with a representative or assistant. A full written response of the panel’s findings will be provided within five working days of the hearing.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of problems with the chimney

The landlord attended the resident’s property in response to his concerns about the use of the chimney. This was appropriate given it is obligated to carry out repairs to the structure of the property. Upon investigation however, it became clear that the resident intended to use the chimney as part of a setup for a gas fire installation, rather than there being a substantive repair issue with the chimney that the landlord was obligated to fix beyond minor pointing works.
The landlord subsequently repeatedly conveyed to the resident that the chimney was not in use and had not been in the time the resident had a tenancy at the property. It maintained the position that it was therefore not responsible for carrying out checks on the chimney in accordance with gas safety regulations given the chimney was not in use and it had fulfilled its obligations to the resident under the tenancy agreement and its policies to provide him with an electric fire. When it became apparent that the resident had installed a gas fire without approval, this was condemned and arranged to be removed.
The landlord relied on its policy in taking the position that it was not obligated to offer a replacement fire, or to recommission the chimney given the resident had installed the fire without permission and against the terms of the tenancy agreement, which he acknowledged. It acted appropriately in attending the property as required to inspect and carry out any necessary repair works, and then set out its position on the limits of its repair obligations once it became clear that the resident was seeking to have a gas fire remain in situ. It did however note that it would comply with future obligations that arose if the resident installed a gas fire with approval and at his own cost.
The landlord acted appropriately in responding to both the resident’s reports and also the discovery of the unapproved gas fire. It conveyed the relevant information to the resident about its obligations and the limitations on the resident’s rights to carry out work in the property, and promptly addressed the potential safety issue that arose as a result of the gas fire which it considered had been installed incorrectly. It set out the obligation that it was not obligated to undertake any further work in this regard, beyond the repair work it carried out to the pointing. This decision was justified given it had fulfilled its obligations in providing a working electric fire, acted reasonably to resolve the safety issue of the improperly installed gas one and advised the resident on the steps he would need to take if he wanted a gas one, which it would facilitate if the correct process was followed.

The landlord’s response to reports of problems with the boiler

Following the resident’s reports that he was experiencing problems with his boiler and that he was concerned about its safety, the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend the property and inspect it. The contractor concluded that there was no evidence that a particular part had been installed incorrectly, however made the decision to change this part to a purpose-made one for the resident’s peace of mind. Nevertheless, it maintained the position that the original set-up would have caused no danger to the resident or property.
The landlord explained to the resident the annual inspection and servicing procedure, how the results were interpreted and the threshold that would need to be met for a full strip-down service to be undertaken. It noted that this process had been carried out appropriately in a regular fashion annually, and that the procedure and thresholds for further work had been drafted in line with current British standards. While it acknowledged that the resident did not consider the British standards to be relevant, it stated that these were the appropriate ones to judge its work by. Its quality assurance team was satisfied that the work had been completed appropriately on an annual basis and that the resident’s concerns did not amount to a need to undertake any further work. It also sought to reassure the resident about his concerns by providing him with a copy of the property’s most recent gas certificate when this was requested. Each of these steps were appropriate ones to take to address the resident’s concerns, and the relevant documents support the landlord’s position on the level of maintenance work necessary for the boiler.

The landlord’s response to reports of other outstanding repair issues

Following the resident’s reports that there were other issues with repairs at the property, the landlord attempted to arrange appointments on multiple occasions to attend and clarify the work that needed to be done. Following the cancellation of appointments by the resident, the landlord wrote to him noting that he was obligated to allow the landlord entry to undertake its repair obligations under the terms of his tenancy agreement.
Following the inspection that went ahead on 8 August 2019, the landlord raised 17 jobs to be undertaken as repairs by its contractors. The evidence indicates that the repairs were undertaken within a maximum of two and a half months, which was appropriate when weighing the landlord’s repair timescales of 28 days for routine repairs against the scope of the works required. The landlord was also hindered by difficulties in communicating with the resident to ascertain what work was outstanding and to establish when he was available for certain appointments to go ahead. The resident agreed that the works had been completed as of 21 November 2019, save for the remedying of an issue with the property’s water pressure, and signed off on a document that confirmed this was the case.
Following the resident’s reports that there continued to be outstanding repair work, the landlord met with the resident on site on 30 January 2020 to ascertain what these were. As set out in its correspondence with the resident and various complaint responses, it addressed each of these outstanding works in the following manner:
1. It investigated the property’s EPC rating which the resident had raised as a concern, confirming that a review had taken place a few years earlier which established the rating was acceptable and in line with the relevant standards. Additionally an inspection carried out at the property had established no issues with the insulation which would have contributed to any problem. It also provided the EPC certificate to the resident to reassure him of its findings, noting that the property could not be issued a new EPC certificate within ten years of the previous assessment, and that it was highly unlikely that a rating would change in the time that had elapsed since the inspection.
2. The landlord and resident agreed that the work to improve the water pressure in his property would be undertaken in the early part of 2020 following the undertaking of the other repair work, due to time and budget constraints. Though the resident continued to report issues with his water pressure until the work to connect the new supply was completed in March 2020, the landlord maintained the position that it was progressing the repair as fast as it could. It also noted that the resident’s water supply was maintained during this time, and when it attended the property to test the supply and pressure, it found no problems.
3. Records of its internal communications in early 2020 support the position set out in its complaint responses that it had promptly undertaken the steps that it was able to progressing the repair prior to waiting for the local water utility supplier to “swap over the services”. It kept the resident updated and carried out the work as soon as it was able to, and prior to this it chased the utility supplier for updates and to progress the work promptly.
4. The landlord inspected the walk-in shower based on the resident’s concerns that the drainage was unsatisfactory. It clarified with the resident that the setup was not a wet room which was appropriate given the resident had an inaccurate understanding of how the room and appliances were meant to work. It also noted that the shower should be used in conjunction with the shower curtain to prevent excess water spillage. The inspection demonstrated that there was not enough water remaining to justify carrying out lifting works on the floor, and it noted having previously relayed the surface on 2 September 2019. These steps demonstrated that the landlord engaged with the resident’s concerns by investigating the problem, noting how it had fulfilled its obligations as a justifiable conclusion to the investigation, clarified areas of confusion and attempted to assist the resident to avoid the issue in future. These were all appropriate steps to take in the circumstances and demonstrated a good faith attempt by the landlord to resolve the issue.
The landlord’s actions regarding the repair issues raised by the resident demonstrated that it carried out a proper investigation into each of these and fulfilled its obligations under its policies. Though the resident raised a formal disrepair claim, it was ultimately closed as the resident chose not to pursue it with his solicitors and the repair issues were addressed by the landlord through its repairs policy. Based on the outcomes of its investigation it either carried out the necessary repairs or explained why it had no obligation to do so while nevertheless attempting to assist the resident to resolve some of the problems regardless. Each repair issue was considered as part of the landlord’s complaint investigation, and addressed in a reasonable fashion.

The landlord’s response to reports of nuisance and ASB

The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s reports of ASB from his neighbour by sending a standard letter to him acknowledging the reports each time they came through. It enclosed noise nuisance reporting sheets and the instruction to fill these out in detail to establish an accurate record of the alleged behaviour. The evidence demonstrates that it investigated the reports passed on to it, making contact with the resident’s neighbour on multiple occasions who themselves made counter-allegations of harassment and nuisance against the resident. In discussing this with the resident, the landlord set out that this contributed to the difficulty of establishing what had actually occurred and taking subsequent action to stop inappropriate behaviour. This was an appropriate step to take given the landlord engaged with each of the resident’s reports while noting the limitations of its policy and practical power to affect change without further evidence. It also sought to provide the resident with the means to provide this further evidence.
The resident stated to the landlord on one occasion that he had no intention of continuing to fill out forms regarding the ASB despite being provided with these by the landlord. Additionally, during a visit by the landlord to the property the resident indicated that he had not made any reports to the police and had largely stopped making reports to the landlord when incidents occurred. The landlord nevertheless encouraged him to continue reporting incidents as they occurred to allow them to reach a satisfactory resolution to the issues. On 4 September 2019 the landlord confirmed with the resident that a nuisance case had been made against the neighbour and appropriate action taken following this. The only failing during this process was that there were times when the resident was not kept updated regarding the progress of the case. The landlord responded appropriately by recognising this, apologising and instructing its staff in how to improve this aspect of service delivery.
In its correspondence with the resident the landlord set out the thresholds that would need to be reached for behaviour to be considered nuisance or ASB. Specifically it noted the difficulty with ascertaining the intent behind the neighbour’s whistling, as well as the fact that the radio noise would have to be particularly loud to constitute nuisance. It was proactive in providing the resident with a clearer explanation as to the terms of its policy so as to best provide a satisfactory resolution to the ongoing problem.
The resident acknowledged at one of the meetings on site that investigations and contact by the landlord seemed to have had some impact on the particular whistling behaviour of the neighbour that was seemingly directed at the resident. The behaviour was noted to have largely stopped apart from an isolated incident.
Additionally, the landlord made contact with the police to ascertain if there was any evidence of reporting from the resident that it could use to support taking tenancy enforcement action against the neighbour. The police confirmed that it was not in possession of any such evidence. The landlord also attended the resident’s property on a number of occasions to inspect the reports made by the resident, discussing the alleged behaviour of the neighbour as well as that of a neighbourhood dog which the resident stated was fouling in the area.
The landlord’s complaint responses note that the landlord followed its policy in this way and emphasised the need for evidence to be presented of the ASB in support of any potential action against the neighbour. It closed the cases when appropriate action had been taken or in circumstances where it had investigated and been unable to find enough or any evidence to support taking further steps. In this way it acted appropriately in regards to each of the resident’s reports, bar the failure to keep the resident updated during one of the investigations, and largely acted according to the requirements of its policy.

The installation of a hardstand at the property

The resident was made aware on 6 December 2020 that the disabled facility allocation grant budget had been exhausted, and that work would be carried out to install a hardstand at his property in the new financial year. Nevertheless, the resident raised a complaint about the so-called “delay” in undertaking the works on 27 March 2020, even though the financial year in which it had agreed to carry out the works had not commenced yet.
Given the fact that the resident attempted to raise a complaint about a delay before the agreed timeframe for the work had even begun, let alone been exceeded, the landlord acted reasonably in electing not to raise a new complaint. It explained its position to the resident and restated its commitment to undertaking the works despite the pressure it was under as a result of budgetary constraints and the Covid-19 pandemic, This was a reasonable position to take in the circumstances, and it also followed up on these commitments once the lockdown was lifted.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration regarding the complaint about the resident’s reports of issues with the chimney.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration regarding the complaint about the resident’s reports of issues with the boiler.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration regarding the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repair issues.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration regarding the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s nuisance and ASB reports.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration regarding the resident’s complaint about the delay in installing a hardstand at the resident’s property.

Reasons

The landlord responded to the resident’s request for repairs to his chimney by attending the property and carrying out repairs to the pointing. As part of this inspection it established that the resident was concerned with having a functional gas fire installed, and clearly set out its position to the resident that he was not owed any obligation to this end. The landlord relied on its policies and previous work at the property to justify this, explaining that the resident’s gas fire was installed without authorisation and acting in a reasonable manner to prevent a safety issue arising. It had previously installed an electric fire which fulfilled its obligation to the resident.

The landlord engaged with the resident’s concerns about the boiler and undertook an inspection to ensure there were no safety issues. While maintaining that the setup was appropriate, it nevertheless elected to install a custom made piece of equipment for the resident’s peace of mind. It justified its investigation findings into the appropriateness of its maintenance program by making reference to the relevant British standards.

The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of repair issues at his property in a timely manner. Though it was hampered by a lack of clarity regarding outstanding repair issues and problems with access, it nevertheless arranged on multiple occasions to attend and inspect the property, speak to the resident about the problems and undertake repair work as necessary. Where it was not obligated to carry out a repair, it nevertheless attempted to assist the resident with practical advice on issues such as the use of the walk-in shower to allay his concerns.

The landlord responded appropriately each time the resident raised reports of nuisance and ASB by his neighbour. It attempted to gather evidence from the neighbour’s reports, the police, and its own attendances at the property and meetings with the neighbour. It undertook enforcement action against the neighbour while reasonably acknowledging the difficulties of taking further action without more evidence to back up its position. While it failed to keep the resident updated during the nuisance investigation, it recognised this failing, apologised for it and took steps to ensure it did not happen again.

The landlord acted reasonably in electing not to raise a complaint about the delay in installing the hardstand given the agreed timeframe for the work to be completed had not begun, let alone been exhausted. It outlined to the resident the reasonable budgetary restrictions it was under, as well as the pressure placed on it by the Covid-19 pandemic, in setting out why the timeframe for the work to be completed was justified.