Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202124091)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124091

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited

15 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:
   1. response to the resident’s request to remove the gravel from the front of the property;
   2. response to the resident’s request to remove a vent from her living room;
   3. repairs to the toilet flush;
   4. response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the bathroom;
   5. complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a house.
3. The resident has been in correspondence with the landlord regarding several issues relating to the condition of the property since at least October 2021.
4. The landlord arranged an inspection of the property on 3 November 2021.
5. On 11 November 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint into how the landlord was handling the issues. The complaint included the following:
   1. She had tried several different methods to stop cats from fouling in the gravel in the front garden of the property but had been unsuccessful. A previous housing officer had “promised” to arrange for the gravel to be removed by the landlord. She considered the current condition of the front garden was a health and safety issue.
   2. There had been an ongoing leak from the bathroom into the kitchen below since 2009. She disputed the landlord’s position that this had been caused by retiling work she had arranged.
   3. There was an issue with the toilet refilling after it was flushed. She considered this was a result of a faulty valve washer.
   4. An air vent in the living room had caused cold draughts in the property and an increase in heating costs. The resident noted that she been informed that the vent was installed as a safety measure as a previous tenant operated a gas fire and it was not for ventilation. The resident requested that the landlord seal the vent.
6. The landlord’s formal complaint responses included the following:
   1. It explained that the maintenance of the gravel in the front garden is the resident’s responsibility. The landlord highlighted the relevant section of the tenancy agreement that supported its position.
   2. It reiterated its position that source of the leak from the bathroom was from tiling work which had been arranged by the resident. As this was an addition to the property, any repairs required to the tiling would now become the responsibility of the resident.
   3. In its stage one response, the landlord advised that the issues with the toilet flush were a result of low water pressure. However, the landlord acknowledged in its stage two response that this repair had been unreasonably delayed. The landlord confirmed that this had now been completed and apologised for the delay. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation.
   4. It explained that the air vent in the living room was used to ventilate the room to prevent condensation and it therefore declined the resident’s request to block the vent. The landlord also noted the resident’s comments on the increase in her heating bills and informed her that it was looking to work with its tenants to offer support to help with heating costs.
   5. It apologised to the resident for the delay in providing its stage one response and offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience that this had caused.
7. On 3 March 2023, the landlord informed this service that it had now undertaken work to block the living room air vent as a goodwill gesture and had also undertaken a repair to the shower in the bathroom.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

8. The tenancy agreement states that the ‘home’ is defined as “the property you live in, including the garden, but not including any shared areas.” The tenancy agreement also sets out the landlord’s repair responsibilities and, in part, states that the landlord will “keep the structure and exterior of your home in good repair.” The tenancy agreement also states that the tenant “must keep your garden areas neat and tidy and free from rubbish (this includes any communal gardens and drying areas). If you do not, we may do it for you and charge you the reasonable cost for the work.”
9. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 60 days. An emergency repair is defined as “repairs that are required when there is a risk or potential risk of harm to customers or significant damage to a property.”
10. The landlord’s alterations and improvements policy describes the process where tenants can request permission to make changes to their property. This states that tenants must “obtain any statutory consent prior to the commencement of any works. Obtain written permission before carrying out any textured finishes or other unusual decorative work that could be classed as cosmetic or that may affect future tenancies.” The policy also notes that “the customer will be responsible for any ongoing maintenance costs associated with the works carried out. [The landlord] will take the decision when the property becomes vacant, as to whether to leave in situ and take ownership or remove.”
11. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within 10 working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
12. The landlord’s compensation policy gives guidance on what redress should be offered when service failure for time and inconvenience has been found. This states that the landlord will “consider claims for compensation where customers have suffered a material loss through time and trouble spent trying to resolve service failures. Compensation can be awarded up to a maximum of £100 and should include the cost of telephone calls, visits, postage and time spent resolving issues. The amount of compensation awarded is discretionary.”

Removal of gravel from the front of the property

13. The property’s garden is defined as being part of the ‘home’ and therefore the responsibility to complete repairs to the garden lies with the landlord, as set out in the tenancy agreement. However, the tenancy agreement also states that it is the resident’s responsibility to keep the garden clean and clear of rubbish.
14. While the numerous incidents of cats fouling in the gravel in the garden has been understandably upsetting for the resident, there is no evidence that the fouling had caused any damage to the garden that would require the landlord to raise a repair. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline the resident’s request as it would be her responsibility to resolve the matter as set out in the tenancy agreement. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer advice on how to deal with the issue in its complaint responses.
15. The resident stated that a staff member of the landlord had informed her that it would arrange for the gravel to be removed from the front garden. The surveyor who undertook the inspection of the property on 3 November 2021 noted that this staff member was no longer an employee of the organisation and the landlord has no records of a work order being raised relating to the removal of the gravel.
16. While the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s position, given that there is no present evidence this promise was made, the Ombudsman is unable to find service failure on this basis.
17. In summary, there is no evidence of service failure in how the landlord responded to this element of the complaint, as it is under no obligation to clean or clear the gravel in the front garden of the property.

Removal of a vent from the living room

18. The surveyor who undertook the property inspection noted that “it was brought to my attention that in the lounge the tenant had duct tape and Sellotape covering a brick vent low to the skirting. When explaining why it was covered the tenant explained that if the vent is uncovered the cold air comes in and the tenant feels the cold. They explained further that an ex-member of staff said this would be removed as it was initially used as ventilation from an old gas fire and to prevent carbon monoxide build up in the property. I apologised for the confusion in communication but as a final clarification I see no reason why the vent needs to be removed as this is allowing natural air flow for the property and preventing a build-up of condensation in internal humidity levels.”
19. The landlord stood by this position in its complaint responses and declined to seal up the vent. This was a reasonable decision for the landlord to make based on the opinion of its appropriately qualified surveyor. However, the landlord changed its decision following the end of the complaint process. In a covering letter sent with its evidence to this service, the landlord explained that “due to [the resident’s] reports of the impact of the air vent causing a draught and considering rising heating costs, we agreed to block up the air vent from the inside and the outside. These works have been completed.”
20. While the landlord ultimately changed the position it had in its formal response, the works it carried out were an improvement to the property and not a repair. It was not necessarily obligated to carry out these works. Given the impact described by the resident, this was an appropriate use of its discretion. However, its position in its formal responses remained reasonable as they were based on the evidence given by its surveyor.

Repairs to the toilet flush

21. The landlord has accepted there was service failure in how it responded to this aspect of the complaint. It apologised for the incorrect information given at stage one of the complaint process that attributed the slowness of the cistern refilling as low water pressure and arranged for a repair to resolve the problem. The landlord also offered £50 compensation in recognition of the delay.
22. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and offer compensation as the delay caused by the incorrect information meant that the toilet was repaired outside of its 60-day timescale for routine repairs.
23. The compensation offer was calculated in line with the guidance in the landlord’s compensation policy detailed above. It was also in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This recommends a payment from £50 in cases of service failure of a short duration that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome. Therefore, a payment of £50 that recognised the delay in completing the repair and the incorrect information given in its stage one complaint response was reasonable in the circumstances. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Repairs to a leak from the bathroom

24. In their report following the 3 November 2021 inspection, the landlord’s surveyor stated that:
    1. “Whilst making a full inspection of the bathroom, it immediately came to my attention that alterations had been made to the bathroom that were not installed by a [landlord] operative or [the landlord] on planned works. The alterations were namely the flooring and also the tiling within the wet area of the bath. A [landlord] operative has attempted to make minor repairs to re-seal the bath and install a PCV D-bar around the top of the bath to prevent water penetration behind and through the kitchen ceiling.”
    2. “While inspecting the tiles I noticed that there was in fact a crack in the grout line of the tiles and around 1m2 section of the tiles were beginning to lose their adhesion to the wall within the wet area. In my opinion this is likely due to water becoming trapped behind the tiles and perishing the tile adhesive behind.”
    3. “The tenant explained that when they moved in [they] installed the tiling round the bath to improve the aesthetics of the bathroom. [I] explained that as they had made the alterations themselves, they take responsibility for the repairs that would be required which are now causing water ingress to damage the plasterboard ceiling in the kitchen.”
25. The advice given by the surveyor is in line with the landlord’s policy on alterations and improvements detailed above. This position has been disputed by the resident, who has held that the source of the leak is the shower head and therefore it is the landlord’s responsibility to resolve.
26. As previously stated, it is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its appropriately qualified staff members in making technical decisions such as determining the source of the leak from the bathroom. It is clear that the resident disagrees with the surveyor’s report; however, there is no evidence available to contradict the surveyor’s findings. That it’s not to say that there is no substance in the resident’s position that the shower head was the cause of the leak, only that it has not been possible to substantiate her opinion with the evidence available.
27. Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure in how the landlord responded to this aspect of the complaint as it has clearly explained its position, the surveyor’s findings and its policy on repairs to items installed by residents in its complaint responses.

Complaints handling

28. The resident first requested to raise a formal complaint on 11 November 2021. On 1 February 2022, the resident called this service to state her dissatisfaction as the landlord had not opened a complaint. This service then wrote to the landlord of three occasions (on 1 February 2022, 1 March 2022, and 18 March 2022) before a complaint was opened and a stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 25 March 2022; four months after the resident had raised a complaint and 84 working days outside of the landlord’s 10 working days stage one target response time.
29. The landlord apologised to the resident for the delay and offered £100 compensation. However, this offer was at the lowest end of the scale in its compensation policy and was not reasonable in light of the significant length of time it took the landlord to provide the stage one response and the clear inconvenience this caused to the resident.
30. Therefore, there has been service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling as the level of compensation offered did not properly reflect the 84 working day delay in providing the response and the inconvenience caused to the resident in having to chase the landlord and contact this service on numerous occasions to progress the complaint. An order for £250 has therefore been made to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s:
    1. request to remove the gravel from the front of the property;
    2. request to remove a vent from her living room;
    3. reports of a leak from the bathroom.
32. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it handled  repairs to the toilet flush which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves this element of the complaint.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

34. For the service failure in its complaint handling, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £250. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this service when payment has been made. This compensation amount is inclusive of the £100 offered by the landlord in its stage two complaint response. This can be deducted from the compensation amount if it has already been paid.

Recommendations

35. As the finding of reasonable redress was made based on the landlord’s offer of £50, it is recommended that this is now paid by the landlord if it has not done so already.