Waverley Borough Council (202119471)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119471

Waverley Borough Council

2 September 2022

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 response to the resident’s concerns about being recharged for damaged internal doors and clearance at the end of her tenancy.

Background

2. The resident was a former tenant of the landlord at the property until February 2021 when she ended her tenancy.
3. The landlord sent the resident an invoice for recharges applicable to the former property on 17 March 2021. This stated that £795.46 was payable which related to clearing out the property and renewing a door which was damaged and not considered to be the result of fair wear and tear. The resident disputed the charges on 29 March 2021 and asked for a breakdown of the cost. She also asked for a copy of the pre-termination report as she could not recall whether this had been completed. The landlord responded and confirmed that no pre-termination report was completed as a result of Covid-19. It confirmed that the cost of the work to the door was £518.68, the cost of removing items from the property was £79.41, and there was an administration charge of £197.37.
4. The resident disputed the recharges applied by the landlord as she had not been given a fair opportunity to complete the work herself as no pre-termination check had been completed and she had not been told that the doors would need replacing. In response, the landlord confirmed that there were four doors which needed replacing due to damage at the cost of £129.67 per door and supplied photographs to the resident. It explained that in line with her tenancy agreement, the resident would be responsible for leaving the property empty, clean and in a good state of repair when she moved out. It had been unable to complete an inspection due to the impact of Covid-19 and apologised that this could not take place.
5. Following further communication, the landlord agreed to waive the administration fee of £197.37 and confirmed that it would reduce the charge for replacing four doors as the photographs it had taken did not clearly show damage in two instances. It reduced the recharge for this aspect to £259.34 for two of the replacement doors and upheld the charge of £79.41 for the removal of items. In response, the resident agreed to pay the removal charge but continued to dispute the charge for two of the replacement doors. She offered to pay £35 towards each door but this was refused.
6. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied that no pre-termination check was carried out due to Covid-19. She felt that she should not be recharged for the cost of replacing internal doors within the property, as she would have had the opportunity to do this herself had the pre-termination check been carried out and she was informed that the doors needed to be replaced.

Assessment and findings

7. The tenancy conditions confirm that a tenant agrees to leave their home empty, clean and in a good state of repair and decoration when they move out. They are responsible for repairing any damage and replacing any missing fixtures and fittings. They also agree to repay any costs associated with clearing personal items or rubbish from the property and any repair work that is required which would not be considered ‘fair wear and tear’.
8. In line with the landlord’s recharge policy, following receipt of a notification to end a tenancy, the landlord will visit the property and carry out a pre-termination inspection. The tenant will be verbally advised of potential rechargeable repairs during the visit and may choose to carry out required works themselves. The policy also confirms that the charge for any work will be determined by applying the relevant Schedule of Rates code, and that an administration charge of 15% may be added if a reminder invoice needs to be sent to the resident.
9. The resident has explained that she remains dissatisfied with the recharges as she did not have the opportunity to complete the works herself as no pre-termination inspection was carried out. The landlord has explained that the inspection was not carried out as a result of Covid-19 restrictions in February 2021. While the resident’s concerns are noted, the landlord was not able to complete a pre-termination check due to the impact of Covid-19. This was outside of the landlord’s control and in line with Government guidance at the time.
10. It is noted that the resident has told this Service that the landlord attended the tenancy sign up for the property she was moving to in person, contradicting its approach to the pre-termination inspection. However, this matter was not raised as part of the complaint to the landlord and this Service can only make findings on matters that have first been considered by a landlord through its complaints procedure. Accordingly, this investigation is unable to consider whether there has been any inconsistency in the landlord’s approach to in-person appointments with the resident at this time.
11. The landlord failed to provide a breakdown of the costs in its initial invoice sent to the resident in March 2021. It also provided incorrect information about the works that it had recharged, as it initially said that only one door had been charged for but later clarified that the charge was for the replacement of four doors. It is understandable that the lack of detail and amount of the invoice would have caused the resident significant distress. The resident also had to go to the time and effort of pursuing this matter with the landlord before it provided adequate and accurate information about the recharges. It is therefore recommended that the landlord provides itemised breakdowns to its customers going forward.
12. The landlord initially applied an administration charge of £197.31 and it told the resident that it applies this to all recharges at a rate of 33%. No evidence has been provided to confirm that this is the landlord’s properly agreed policy on this matter. Accordingly, the landlord has not been able to show that this charge was reasonably applied and it was therefore appropriate for it to remove this charge in response to the complaint. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its recharge policy if it wishes to apply an administration charge of this kind in the future to ensure transparency, and in doing so it should consider what a reasonable charge would be taking into account common industry practice.
13. The resident told the landlord that she was prepared to pay the charge of £79.41 associated with clearing items from her property. She initially said that she had not removed the carpet due to concerns about asbestos under the flooring, however, accepted that there were other items in the property that needed removal following the end of her tenancy. Given that items had been left in the property and the tenancy conditions confirm the property should be left empty, it was reasonable for the landlord to apply this charge.
14. In relation to the recharges for the doors, the landlord accepts that its photographs do not support the charge for two of the doors. While the landlord took appropriate steps through its complaints procedure to remove these charges, it is of concern that the charges were applied without adequate supporting evidence and that the resident had to go to the time and trouble of pursuing this with the landlord. It is therefore recommended that the landlord reviews its procedures for recording any damage to its properties and ensures that adequate evidence is obtained before recharges are applied.
15. The resident remains dissatisfied that she was recharged for damage to the airing cupboard door. She says that she had to refix the handle to this door and had lived in the property for 20 years so this should be regarded as fair wear and tear. The photograph of the airing cupboard door provided by the landlord appears to show that the door handle has been refixed and there is nothing to suggest that this was caused by anything more than fair wear and tear. The tenancy conditions confirm that the resident is responsible for replacing handles to internal doors and the evidence suggests that the resident took steps to meet her obligations as she refixed the handle. Therefore, the landlord did not have adequate evidence to support this recharge and a service failure has been identified in this regard. To put things right the landlord has been ordered to remove the associated recharge and to pay the resident compensation in recognition of the time and trouble she has gone to in disputing the recharge.
16. The resident has also disputed the level of the charge for the door replacement works, stating that she was able to find replacement doors at a cost of £35 each. The recharge policy sets out that the landlord will apply the relevant Schedule of Rates code in pricing recharges, and the documentation completed as part of the void works confirms that the landlord did so. Schedule of Rates codes are used across the social housing sector and there is nothing to suggest that it was inappropriate for the landlord to apply the relevant rate; it should also be noted that the charge will have included labour as well as material costs.

Determination

17. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about being re-charged for damaged internal doors and clearance at the end of her tenancy.

Orders and recommendations

18. The landlord is ordered to do the following within four weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Remove the recharge relating to the airing cupboard door.
    2. Pay the resident £75 compensation for the time and trouble she has gone to in pursuing her concerns about the recharges.
19. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Provides itemised breakdowns of recharges to customers.
    2. Reviews its re-charge policy if it wishes to apply an administration charge, clearly setting out what the charge is. As part of this review it is recommended that the landlord considers what a reasonable charge would be taking into account common industry practice.
    3. Reviews its procedures for recording any damage to its properties and ensures that adequate evidence is obtained before recharges are applied.