Livv Housing Group (202010618)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010618

Knowsley Housing Trust

10 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property, after electrical rewiring work had been carried out.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.

3. The property is a three-bedroom house.

4. The landlord carried out electrical rewiring work to the resident’s property in October 2019. The resident was unhappy with the state her property was left in, following the work.

Summary of events

5. On 11 November 2019, the resident contacted the landlord via telephone to log a formal complaint. According to the landlord’s internal communication, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the state her property was left in, after the rewiring works were carried out, and advised that this situation had caused her distress and had impacted her mental health because she did not have a “bed to sleep in for seven weeks”. Furthermore, it was noted that redecoration works “had started but it was slow” and that the resident refused the landlord’s decoration allowance (in the form of vouchers) because it would “not cover what was damaged”.

6. Moving forward, the landlord visited the resident on 18 November 2019 to assess the property and discuss the resident’s complaint. The landlord then issued a stage one complaint response on 9 December 2019 comprised of the following points:

1. It would not accommodate the resident’s request “for cash compensation of £2400”.
2. It addressed the fact that, as per its policy, it offered “an enhanced decorating allowance of £50 per room” which was still available, should the resident change her mind.
3. Additionally, the landlord offered the resident the option to have its “in-house painting and decorating team” attend the property and complete the outstanding decorating works.
4. Furthermore, the landlord acknowledged that “flooring works” were yet to be completed and advised that it would do so once the resident made a decision in respect of this.

7. On 10 December 2019, the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on her behalf to request for her complaint to be escalated to the second stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure. The letter additionally mentioned the following matters:

a. The resident believed “the work was not done to a good standard and fixtures were put back poorly, such as kitchen units”.

b. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s offer for compensation of £50 per room in the form of vouchers because she believed this was not “substantial in covering the repair work which would need to be completed”. She said she had already spent £2400 “on a professional decorator to repair the plaster and other issues” and certain works were “yet to be completed”.

c. The resident did not accept the landlord’s offer to send its own contractor to carry out the outstanding works or of compensation in the form of vouchers because of the costs she had already incurred.

8. As a result of the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to the second stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure, a panel review took place on 20 December 2019 which was attended by both the resident and landlord. The landlord then issued a stage two complaint response on 9 January 2020, comprised of the below points:

1. Following the panel review, it was determined that the resident was unhappy with: the fact that the electricians who attended walked through the property without ensuring the flooring was protected; “the time taken for the work to be completed and standard of rewire”; “the damage caused to floor coverings due to inadequate protection”; “substandard plastering and making good following rewire”; “failure” to clean the property “to an acceptable level following rewire”; and the “value of the decoration allowance”.
2. After investigating the matters raised, the landlord decided to partially uphold the resident’s complaint.
3. With regard to the resident’s concerns about the level of protection used when carrying out the rewire works, the landlord advised that it reviewed the photos provided by its contractor and was “happy that this was completed and to a high standard”.
4. With regard to the resident’s concerns about the amount of time taken to complete the works and standards of the rewiring, the landlord advised that it had informed the resident of the “level of disruption” prior to the works commencing; however, it conducted meetings with the staff involved and reviewed the data provided. The landlord confirmed it was happy with the timeframe the works were completed in, and that minor outstanding issues with the wiring were “assessed and addressed” as part of its post–work inspection.
5. With regard to the resident’s concerns about the standard of the plastering in her property, the landlord assessed the photographs provided and made arrangements for this to be remedied prior to the painting of the affected areas.
6. Furthermore, the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns regarding the valeting of her property and advised that his could not be delivered due to “the Christmas shut-down and the seasonal lack of availability” and that its decoration allowance was “an acknowledgement of disturbance caused and a contribution towards decoration”, not a replacement of the old décor.
7. As a resolution, the landlord confirmed that it would remedy the affected areas of plaster prior to the painting of the property and that it could arrange professional redecoration of her property; however, it would not offer any further compensation as it was happy that the works completed and support provided were in line with its standards.

Assessment and findings

9. It is noted that the resident has stated that she considers that the issues affecting her property have exacerbated her medical conditions. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of repairs and the resident’s medical conditions. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

The landlord’s repairs policy

10. The landlord’s repairs policy states that, under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, it is responsible for the following:

1. To keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house.
2. To keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling house for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation.
3. To keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling house for space and water heating.

11. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the replacement of internal decorations, laminate and carpet are the resident’s responsibility; however, “where damage is caused by negligence” of the landlord or its contractors it would consider payments of “damage to property” which would be payable upon receipt of invoices or estimate. Furthermore, the landlord would offer decoration allowance vouchers of £35 per room if the décor was damaged due to negligence by its contractors.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property, after the rewiring work was carried out

12. Based on the information provided to this Service, the landlord carried out rewiring work to the resident’s property in October 2019. Following these works, the resident was unhappy with the condition her property was left in and lodged a complaint with the landlord, on 11 November 2019, in respect of this matter. As a result, the landlord visited the resident on 18 November 2019, to assess the property and discuss her complaint. The landlord then issued a stage one complaint response on 9 December 2019, advising it would not accommodate the resident’s request for compensation on £2400 but instead offered enhanced decoration allowance vouchers of £50 per room or to have its decoration team attend the property and remedy the issues caused by the rewiring work. In respect of the above matters, it is noted that the landlord acknowledged the issues caused by the works it carried out and exceeded its responsibilities, laid out in its repairs policy, because:

1. As per its repairs policy, the landlord is not responsible for internal decorations.
2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it would offer decoration allowance vouchers of £35 per room. In this instance, however, the landlord increased this to £50.
3. The landlord offered to instruct its decoration team to attend the property and carry out redecoration works.

14. Furthermore, it is noted that the landlord agreed to replace the resident’s laminate flooring which, as per its repairs policy, is also the resident’s responsibility.

15. As the resident was unhappy with this outcome, the landlord agreed to escalate her complaint to the second stage of its complaints procedure. Based on the information provided to this Service, the landlord conducted a thorough investigation by reviewing the photographs taken by the contractors who attended the property to carry out the rewiring work and held meetings with the staff involved, to ensure that all its actions met the standards imposed by its policies.

16. Following the stage two investigation, the landlord addressed all the concerns raised by the resident and decided to instruct its in–house decorations team to attend the property to remedy the issues caused by the rewiring works and replace the laminate flooring. While this Service appreciates that the resident may have incurred certain costs, it is clear that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and put matters right for the resident. What is more, if there were failings following the rewiring works, the landlord would need the opportunity to put matters right. In this case, the resident had already incurred costs of her own volition that were undertaken prior to the landlord having the opportunity to put matters right. Because the landlord was not given the opportunity to assess and investigate before the resident had undertaken works, the landlord would not be expected to reimburse the resident.

17. To conclude, it is clear that, once the landlord was informed of the outstanding issues at the property, it took reasonable steps to investigate, liaise with the resident and staff, and put things right by offering to carry out works that do not normally fall under its responsibilities, and to offer compensation. As stated above, this Service appreciates the costs incurred by the resident; however, the landlord should not be held accountable or have to reimburse the resident for these costs because it was not given the opportunity to investigate and put matters right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

18. Once the issues were raised, the landlord investigated these in a timely manner and took reasonable steps to put things right for the resident by exceeding the responsibilities laid out in its repairs policy.