Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Bromsgrove District Housing Trust Limited (202205923)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205923

Bromsgrove District Housing Trust Limited

16 May 2023

 

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 queries regarding:
    1. Her request for it to provide a double oven in the property.
    2. The landlord installing some kitchen units which did not match the existing units.
    3. The length of time taken for the landlord to paint the kitchen wall.
    4. The resident being liable to pay charges for two properties simultaneously for a period.

Background

  1. The resident occupies the property, a one-bedroom bungalow owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The resident previously lived with a relative in a property owned by the landlord. After her relative, the sole tenant, unfortunately passed away, the landlord helped her to relocate to a smaller property with the tenancy in her name, as she did not have succession rights.
  2. The resident signed the tenancy agreement for the new property on 19 April 2022, however, she did not move into the property until a month later as she was unhappy with a number of issues. She contacted the landlord on 27 April to raise a complaint. She told the landlord that the new property was uninhabitable as it did not have a cooker and that the landlord’s contractors had carried out repairs without due care for the carpet and sofa. She was unhappy that the new kitchen units did not match the existing ones. She was also not happy with having to pay rent on both properties whilst the tenancies overlapped.
  3. The landlord sent its stage one response on 13 May. It had sent someone to visit the property on 3 May to understand the issues with the kitchen. A new layout was agreed, including fitting an oven at eye level. The landlord had already provided a freestanding oven and said that the resident had accepted this during a phone call on 8 April. It said she had not raised an issue with this not being at eye level at that time. The landlord agreed to make a referral to occupational therapy to ensure it could consider any further necessary adaptations to the property. The landlord also agreed to send copies of both rent statements so she could see what was outstanding.
  4. The landlord wrote to her on 18 May explaining the next steps for the kitchen. It explained that it was not obliged to provide an oven and the freestanding oven had been provided as a goodwill gesture. It asked her to provide access to the property on 20 May for the freestanding oven to be removed and the new one to be fitted at eye level. It told her that if she declined this connection, she would be responsible for sourcing and installing a new oven at her own expense. It offered the resident £119.04 for loss of the kitchen facility. An appointment was subsequently made to fit the oven on 23 May.
  5. On 20 May the resident returned a reply slip to the landlord confirming she wanted to escalate the complaint to stage two. The landlord sent its final response on 20 June. It maintained that it was not required to provide cooking facilities but increased its previous offer to £490.88 to reflect the period the tenancies had overlapped. It also awarded £50 compensation in recognition of the delay in painting the kitchen wall. The total of £540.88 would be used to reduce the debt owed at the previous property, in line with its complaints policy.
  6. The landlord apologised for its contractors placing the oven on the resident’s sofa and for not placing the hall carpet coverings correctly. It noted that the resident had confirmed that no damage had occurred, and she has not raised this issue with this service. It advised her that a member of the customer service team would be in contact to book in a time to paint the kitchen wall. It also said it would take steps to ensure that residents with no right of succession could register their details to ensure needs can be identified and considered in the future.
  7. The resident responded to the landlord saying she did not accept this outcome as she felt the arrears were due to her having to use the oven at the previous property. She referred the complaint to this service on 26 September 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a double oven

  1. This Service expects a landlord to act in line with the provisions set out in the tenancy agreement and policies. The tenancy agreement states that it is not obliged to carry out repairs to or for the replacement of an oven, therefore the oven is the responsibility of the resident. Due to the circumstances that led to the resident needing to move home, the landlord chose to use its hardship fund to provide a freestanding oven for her.
  2. The resident said that the landlord failed to take her disability into consideration. The landlord has said that it was not aware of the disability at the time the freestanding oven was offered, as there was no process in place for recording this information about someone who did not have succession rights. However, it says this oven was discussed with the resident over the phone on 7 and 8 April 2022, and whilst she did mention that she had a raised oven at the previous property, she did not mention that this was due to a medical need.
  3. The resident explained to the landlord on 22 April that she needed an oven at eye level as it was very difficult for her to use one that required her to bend down. At this point the landlord said it would try to move the one from her previous home. Unfortunately, due to the age of the oven this was not a viable option. It agreed to provide a new, raised cooker and reconfigure the kitchen, with some new units and a breakfast bar, at no additional cost to her. It subsequently also agreed to fit an extra plug socket by the breakfast bar.
  4. The resident says she was promised a double oven; however, this Service has not seen any evidence that this was promised to her.
  5. The Ombudsman does not consider there to be maladministration by the landlord in its decision not to provide the resident with a double oven. The landlord was not required to provide an oven and has gone beyond its obligations to provide her with a suitable oven and accommodate it into the kitchen. There is also no evidence that the landlord mismanaged the resident’s expectation by committing to provide a double oven.
  6. It was a shortcoming in the landlord’s rehousing process that it did not ascertain and keep a record of the resident’s needs. However, it has followed this Service Dispute Resolution Principle, “Learn from outcomes”, by confirming that it would put a process in place for this keeping a record of the needs of residents. With regards to the resident’s situation, it also arranged for a further occupational therapy assessment to ensure any necessary adaptations to the property could be considered. Therefore, the landlord overall has reacted positively when learning about her disability and taken reasonable steps to ensure that these needs are considered in the future.

The replacement of the kitchen units

  1. Whilst it is understandable that the resident may want a fully matching kitchen, the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy does not stipulate that matching sets will be offered. There has been no evidence provided that shows that the kitchen units were in disrepair before being replaced, only that the redesign was required to accommodate the raised oven. As explained above, the landlord was not obligated to provide this, and therefore the redesign was also done as a goodwill gesture.
  2. The landlord has said that the original kitchen units have been discontinued, so it was unable to match the new units exactly to the existing ones and used the best match available. The resident wants the landlord to replace the entire kitchen so that it matches.  However, it was reasonable that the landlord refused as ultimately this is a cosmetic issue and the landlord has a responsibility to manage limited budgets for repair and maintenance so as to comply with repair obligations.
  3. Taken altogether, the Ombudsman does not consider there to be maladministration by the landlord in its refusal to replace the entire kitchen. The work was carried out as a goodwill gesture, outside of its responsibilities under the tenancy agreement, and the replacement units it has fitted have not affected the functionality of the kitchen.

Time taken to paint the kitchen wall

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy sets out that general repairs should be carried out within 11 working days. In its stage two response the landlord confirmed that this had been missed. It apologised for this, awarded £50 compensation and advised a member of staff would be in contact to book in the job.
  2. The Ombudsman does not consider there to be maladministration by the landlord in respect of the painting of the kitchen wall. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.  In this case the landlord offered redress by apologising and offering compensation of £50. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can offer £15 or a goodwill gesture in cases “Where bdht has failed to complete the repair within the specified timescale compensation can be awarded where the tenant has suffered inconvenience”. The landlord’s offer exceeded the policy guidance and, given that the painting of the kitchen wall did not affect the functionality of the kitchen, was reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. The landlord also took steps to put things right for the resident by committing to rearrange and complete the painting works. Taken altogether the landlord has taken reasonable steps to resolve this complaint.

The resident’s liability to pay charges for two properties simultaneously for a period.  

  1. The landlord is entitled to charge use and occupation charges for someone other than a former tenant to remain in occupation of a property. On 3 March 2022 the resident signed to agree to give the landlord vacant possession once new suitable accommodation was found.
  2. The landlord offered new accommodation to the resident on 8 April 2022 and she signed the new tenancy agreement on 19 April 2022.  The tenancy agreement states that “you must pay the rent and any maintenance and service charge in advance on or before the first Monday of each month or where agreed with us at the agreed intervals”, therefore the resident was liable for the rent on the new property from the commencement of her tenancy, whether she was living in the property or not. On 28 April 2022 she agreed to return the keys to the previous property, however she changed her mind when she realised the oven was not suitable for her.
  3. From the evidence provided to this Service, the landlord was clear throughout that she would be charged for both properties both properties whilst she held the keys for both. To resolve the complaint, it agreed to reduce the arrears on the previous property by £540.88 to cover the period where she was waiting for the oven to be installed to at the new property. However, as explained above, it was not obliged to do this.
  4. As the resident could not afford the first month’s rent up front for the new property, the landlord agreed to add £15 per month to pay this off. It also gifted her carpet throughout the property. Again these were actions taken by the landlord that were over and above its obligations to the resident and to her benefit.
  5. The Ombudsman does not consider there to be maladministration by the landlord in it holding the resident liable for the rent/user in occupation charges for two properties. The resident had possession of both properties by failing to return the keys for the previous property when she signed the tenancy agreement for the new property. Whilst she did this because she said the new property was uninhabitable without the landlord providing an oven, the landlord was not required to provide this. It was reasonable therefore that the landlord did not waive either the rent for the new property or user in occupation charges for the previous properties. Furthermore, by reducing the arrears to cover the period when she was waiting for the oven to be installed, it has done more than it was required to do, to the resident’s benefit.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its decision not to provide a double oven in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its replacement of the kitchen units with the best available match.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the length of time taken to paint the kitchen wall.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in holding the resident responsible for rent under the two, overlapping, tenancy agreements.