LiveWest Homes Limited (202011688)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011688

LiveWest Homes Limited

9 March 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 decision to re-charge the resident for the cost of a door due to the installation of a cat flap.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident’s tenancy started in 2017. The property was a new build and the resident was the first occupant. The landlord’s repair history recorded a repair carried out on 29 March 2017. The note stated that the landlord had received confirmation from its carpentry contractor that it had attended to resolve an issue with a metal strip. The carpenter had reported back that the resident had cut a cat flap into the back door which would invalidate the warranty on it.
3. On 5 February 2020, following a repairs visit, the technician noted that the composite back door was warped and that he was unable to adjust it to bring the door any further into the door frame to form a seal. He said that he could not see any other option other than to replace the door.
4. The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 February 2020, stating that, as a cat flap had been cut into the door, this had invalidated the guarantee. Therefore, if the resident wanted the door to be replaced, the landlord would look to recharge the cost to her. If she opted to leave the door as it was, the recharge would be made when she left the property.
5. On 27 February 2020 the resident left the landlord a voicemail saying that the housing officer had given her permission to install the cat flap and therefore she was unhappy at the possibility of a recharge for the door. The landlord’s note says that it returned the call and left a voicemail asking the resident to call again.
6. There was then a break in contact until the resident contacted the landlord on 25 August 2020, to say that the door was now splitting, which she described as “another obvious fault”. A repair was carried out on 28 September 2020.
7. The resident made a formal complaint in October 2020. As part of its investigations the landlord spoke to the housing officer about whether she had given verbal permission for a cat flap. She responded that she would never given anyone verbal confirmation and would always ask that they complete a tenant improvement form. The landlord also sought information from its lead technician about how the cat flap might have affected the door. He responded that the solid core high performance door integrity had been compromised by cutting a hole in it very low to the bottom. As such, the door would ultimately need replacing, unlike if it were a UPVC type door where a panel could just be changed over.
8. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 16 October 2020, it detailed the housing officer’s account and advised that its repairs supervisor had said that it was highly likely he would have refused permission given the type of door it was, as cutting a large hole would compromise its structure. The landlord reiterated that, as the door would need to be replaced at some stage, the cost would be re-charged to the resident.
9. The resident responded that this was not the first time she had had issues with things being asked or reported verbally and then denied. She said that she did get permission from the housing officer, as had other tenants on the estate. She said that she would not have accepted the property if she was not allowed to have a cat flap as she is disabled and unable to keep getting up to let her cats out.
10. In response to the resident requesting that her complaint be escalated to stage 2, the landlord arranged for a technician to inspect the door on 2 November 2020. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 17 November 2020, it did not uphold the complaint. It said that, as written permission had not been obtained at the time, it was likely the cost of a replacement door would be charged to the resident. It reiterated that this did not have to be done straightaway and that it would be assessed by the voids team should the resident decide to move from her current home.
11. In January 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to elaborate on her conversation with the housing officer. She said she asked a few questions about the property and tenancy as she did not want to have to move again. She asked if she was allowed to have her two cats at the new property and was told she could. She then asked if she could have a cat flap installed to which the housing officer responded that if she currently had a cat flap, then it would not be a problem. The resident said she finished the conversation by thanking the housing officer for clarifying that, as she would not be able to accept the property if the cats could not get access to the outside.

Policies and procedures

12. The tenancy agreement states that the resident: ‘may make improvements and alterations to your home as long as you first get our permission in writing… We will not refuse permission without good reason, but may add conditions to our permission. We may make it a condition of our agreement that you remove any fittings or structures and make good any damage at the end of the tenancy.’
13. In relation to improvements or alterations carried out without permission, the tenancy agreement states: ‘If you make alterations without our agreement, we may require you to remove them and make good any damage or, if you do not, we may do this ourselves. If we do, you will have to pay us all the costs we incur.’
14. The landlord’s customer alterations and improvement policy states that:
    1. it will manage requests for alterations with an aim of ensuring that its customers’ homes are not detrimentally affected by any proposed changes;
    2. it wants to make sure that customers’ homes can only have an improvement or alteration if this has been formally approved;
    3. Alterations must be of benefit to its asset and overall housing stock, improving its condition and value by making sure any additional works are completed professionally and to a high standard.
    4. Permission would be refused where the proposed works were detrimental to the overall structure or fabric of the building.
    5. Where a customer has made alterations without permission, the landlord will assess whether the alteration can remain in place or if the home needs to be returned to its original condition.

Assessment and findings

15. The Ombudsman does not comment on, or make findings in relation to, the technical aspects of the door. It is not for this Service to determine the extent of the damage to the door or whether it was beyond repair. Instead, the investigation considers the action taken by the landlord in seeking to recharge the cost of a new door to the resident and whether it followed its policies and procedures, kept to the law and acted reasonably and proportionately in the circumstances.
16. The landlord’s policy is that it will not unreasonably withhold permission for any alterations and it expressly states that installing a cat flap in a door or window is an alteration it would consider granting permission for. Given that the resident already had cats, it is likely that she would have taken them into consideration when deciding on whether to move into the property. Therefore, it is accepted that she may have discussed the possibility of installing a cat flap with the housing officer. In light of the contents of the landlord’s alterations and improvements policy, it is also accepted that the housing officer may have responded in general terms that this sort of alteration is often approved by the landlord.
17. However, in the absence of any documentary evidence to confirm what was discussed, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the housing officer gave the resident any definitive assurances about installing a cat flap. This is particularly the case as alterations are a common issue faced by landlords, and the landlord’s policy (which the housing officer should be aware of) is clear and robust in that regard.
18. Whilst it is appreciated that the resident feels she has a clear recollection of her conversation with the housing officer, this is not sufficient to convey an obligation on the landlord to adhere to any arrangements which may have been discussed. The tenancy agreement is clear that permission must be obtained ‘in writing’ before making any alterations. Further, the policy is clear that a resident must complete a tenant improvement form which would then go to a technical staff member for a decision. As a result, regardless of whether the cat flap was verbally agreed by the officer, the onus was on the resident to follow this up with the appropriate formal application to the landlord so that due process could be followed and an informed decision could be made by the correct person. 
19. As part of investigating the resident’s complaint, the landlord instructed a technician to inspect the door and they concluded that it had been structurally compromised due to the installation of the cat flap. The landlord’s response here was appropriate, by taking steps to assess the matter and confirm its position to the resident. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it was reasonable for the landlord to base its complaint response on the professional opinion of its technician.
20. Had the resident sought written permission for the cat flap, it is possible that the landlord would have liaised with her to find a workable solution (or as the policy puts it, ‘placed conditions on the alteration’). It might have agreed for the cat flap to be put in the door, but higher up, or it might have agreed for it to be sited elsewhere in the property, such as in a window. However, as the resident did not seek written permission and therefore had no input from the landlord, the cat flap was ultimately placed too low down in the door, across the bottom cross brace, thereby affecting its structural integrity.
21. As a new door is required, it is clear that the property has been detrimentally affected by the installation of the cat flap. In seeking to recharge the cost of a new door to the resident, the landlord is acting in accordance with the terms of its policy. Therefore, it has demonstrated that it was mindful of its, and the resident’s, obligations under relevant policies and procedures and has taken the opportunity of the complaints process to clearly explain its position.

Determination (decision)

22. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its decision that the cost of a new back door should be recharged to the resident.