Yorkshire Housing Limited (202100909)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100909

Yorkshire Housing Limited

16 July 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
   1. No gas supply in his kitchen at the start of his tenancy.
   2. Damp in his bedroom and lounge.
   3. Mess left by contractors.
   4. Access to his property and bathroom.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. His tenancy began on 15 May 2020.
3. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on the telephone. The date is unknown. The landlord’s call notes show the resident was dissatisfied that his property was not “suitable for living”. He reported damp, that the “plastering [was] blistering on walls” and that the “floor [was] lifting”. He said the landlord had not dealt with these issues.
4. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 18 December 2020. It confirmed that in 2021 (it did not give exact dates), it was “looking to carry out” various works to the property. These works included but were not limited to: kitchen alterations, and organising for a surveyor to attend and investigate the damp. It said when it visited the resident (on 15 December), its contractors were installing a new wet room. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied. 
5. A surveyor attended on 6 January 2021 to investigate the damp.
6. The resident escalated his complaint to the landlord on the telephone on 28 January 2021. The landlord’s call notes show the resident believed the property should not have been let, as it did not “meet [the] minimum standards”. He explained that in the first three weeks of his tenancy, he did not have a gas supply to his kitchen so was unable to cook. He also said that the “requirements were ground level access but that wasn’t the case”, and he “couldn’t get a shower due to access issues”. He acknowledged that a ramp, and wet room had since been fitted. He said contractors had left a “mess all over his house”.
7. The landlord issued it stage two complaint response on 23 February 2021. It addressed the resident’s concerns individually. It said:
   1. When the resident moved in there was no gas supply to the kitchen. It acknowledged that the resident had paid for an external contractor to attend, but they were unable to resolve the issue. It said that on 28 May 2020 its contractor attended and connected his gas cooker. It said it should have informed him about the gas supply at the time of letting, and apologised “if this did not happen”.
   2. It had installed a ramp, and wet room since the resident moved in. It apologised if this had taken longer than expected. It said that it took time to schedule and organise adaptations.
   3. Its surveyor had not found any damp issues during the void inspection. It acknowledged that it subsequently found damp after the resident had reported a leaking radiator (it is unclear when exactly). It said it had arranged for damp proof work. It said its contractors had completed work to his bedroom that week, and that there had been a delay in completing work to the lounge due to the need to install an additional electrical socket.
   4. It had organised for cleaners to attend (it is unclear when exactly). It apologised that its contractors had not cleaned up as well as they should, and said it would address this with them. It said it would arrange for another cleaner to attend if necessary.
8. The landlord apologised for the issues the resident had experienced. It said that following his complaint, it had learnt to ensure prospective residents were aware of what amenities were available, and to ensure its contractors cleaned up properly. It said it had organised to fit new carpets, and new vinyl flooring as a goodwill gesture. It would also meet any reasonable quote by an external decorator for redecorating his home. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
9. On 14 May 2021 the landlord confirmed with the resident that it would reimburse him for the costs he incurred arranging an external contractor in May 2020 to resolve the gas supply.

Assessment and findings

No gas supply at the start of his tenancy

10. The landlord acknowledged in its stage two complaint response that it should have advised the resident before he signed the tenancy that there was no gas supply to the kitchen, as this meant he could not use his gas cooker. It apologised, and explained that it would ensure it did not repeat this error. It said it had attended on 28 May 2020 to connect the cooker, and on 14 May 2021 it offered to reimburse him for the costs incurred from having an external contractor attend.
11. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are: to be fair, put things rights, and learn from outcomes. The evidence shows that the landlord followed these principles. It set out what it had learnt from the complaint, and reimbursed the resident to put him back in the same position had the misunderstanding not occurred. Also, as it connected his cooker within two weeks of the resident moving in, the evidence does not suggest that there was a permanent impact on him as a result of the landlord’s failing. Nevertheless, the landlord made suitable redress for failing to set the resident’s expectations.

Damp in his bedroom and lounge

12. The landlord explained in its stage one complaint response that it would arrange for a surveyor to inspect following the resident’s reports of damp. It then carried out damp proof work. The evidence therefore shows that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate, and address the resident’s concerns. It also explained in its stage two complaint response that its surveyor had not found any issues with damp prior to letting. This is supported by the “void re let standard” checklist that has been provided for this investigation. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to have reassured the resident that the property was in a suitable condition to be let.

Mess left by contractors

13. In response to the resident’s reports that the contractors had left a mess in his home, the landlord organised for cleaners to attend, and offered to arrange another appointment. It also explained that it would ensure its contractors cleaned up properly in the future. The landlord therefore took pragmatic, and proportionate action to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Access to his property and bathroom

14. The resident complained to the landlord that “requirements were ground level access but that wasn’t the case”, and that he could not use his shower due to access issues. The landlord explained in its stage two complaint response that it had fitted a wet room, and ramp in his home, and apologised if it had taken longer than he had expected.
15. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided when the resident initially reported access issues, and when the landlord installed the adaptations. The landlord was asked to provide information about this aspect of the complaint, but it has not done so. We rely on robust records from when issues were reported in order to determine whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
16. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about this issue acknowledges that there may have been delays, but gives no information or details about it. In the absence of such information, or supporting evidence from the landlord, we are not able to determine whether its explanation was reasonable. This is a failing, and impacts on our ability to robustly determine this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

17. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
    1. Damp in his bedroom and lounge.
    2. Mess left by contractors.
18. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation for the resident’s concerns of having no gas supply in his kitchen at the start of his tenancy which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
19. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns of access to his property and bathroom.

Reasons

20. The landlord gave reasonable responses to the resident’s concerns of damp, and a mess. It reimbursed him for the cost of having an external contractor attend to address the gas supply issue. However, it failed to provide relevant information for this investigation about the resident’s concerns about access in his property.

Orders and recommendations

21. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 for the inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the resident’s complaint about access.
22. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made, and the resident should contact this Service if payment has not been received by the due date.
23. In the absence of a meaningful explanation in its complaint response on the issue of access to the resident’s property, or any supporting evidence about its actions, the landlord is also ordered to review that aspect of the complaint. The review should set out the actions the landlord took in regard to the access ramp and wet room, the timeframes involved, and set out and explain the delays it said occurred. It should also robustly assess its actions to decide whether a remedy to the resident remains outstanding.