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

Optivo (now Southern Housing) (202128305)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128305

Optivo

22 June 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:
    1. the landlord’s delays in replacing the resident’s window, and;
    2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of workmanship on the replacement window.

Background

  1. The resident has occupied the property under an assured tenancy agreement since July 2017. The property is a one-bedroom first floor flat.
  2. On 21 February 2020, the landlord raised a repairs job to replace sealant around the resident’s living room window. This was in response to the resident’s concerns about draughts. The resident refused the sealant repair as he did not think this would resolve the problem. On 10 December 2020, the resident informed the landlord that there was still a draught problem. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to carry out an inspection on 10 February 2021. The surveyor reported that the window had been made and fitted “out of square”. The surveyor said that the only way to resolve the problem was to replace the window.
  3. The window was replaced by the landlord’s contractor on 22 September 2021. The resident then raised concerns about the standard of workmanship on the replacement window. The landlord’s follow up survey said there was nothing wrong with the window. The resident then arranged and paid for an independent survey, which identified faults with the installation of the replacement window. It said the window was too small and a new window would need to be fitted to correct this.
  4. On 22 October 2021, the resident raised a complaint about the time taken to replace the window and the quality of the replacement. The resident said that he wanted compensation for additional heating costs caused by draughts from the original window.
  5. In its stage 1 response on 4 November 2021, the landlord apologised for the delay and said that it would look at ways to improve response times. The landlord said it would not pay compensation, as it had paid compensation for an earlier complaint relating to draughts and heating costs. It added that the resident had refused a temporary repair that would have prevented draughts until the window was replaced. The landlord said it was satisfied with the quality of the window.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 7 December 2021. He said that the window should be replaced. He asked for a refund of the survey costs and compensation for heating costs, as the previous payment only covered the period up to March 2020, and the window had not been replaced until September 2021.
  7. In its final response on 28 January 2022, the landlord said it was not necessary to replace the window, but it would replace the window cheeks to remove a gap. It said it would not refund the survey fee as it had not agreed it and would not pay additional compensation for heating as the previous award was sufficient. The landlord offered £150 for delays in replacing the window.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s offers in its final response. He wanted the window replaced, a refund of the survey fee and compensation for additional heating costs. He contacted this Service on 28 March 2022 about his complaint.

Assessment and findings

  1. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. In particular, the Act requires landlords to ensure the property’s fitness for habitation.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s obligations to carry out repairs. The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for keeping “the structure and outside of the property in a reasonable state of repair and proper working order”. This includes windows. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord should “carry out any repairs work that is our responsibility within a reasonable time of receiving your report and to a reasonable standard”. The resident is responsible for allowing the landlord or its contractors to carry out inspections or repairs at any reasonable time.

The landlord’s delays in replacing the resident’s window.

  1. The landlord initially offered to repair the window with silicon sealant in February 2020. Records provided by the landlord show that the repair was refused by the resident as he “felt this was a waste of time”. This Service has not been provided with any evidence that the landlord carried out a full inspection of the window at this time. When the resident reported the problem again on 10 December 2020, the landlord arranged an inspection for 27 January 2021. This was cancelled when the resident said that he did not want the specified contractor to attend. The landlord accommodated this request, and the inspection was rearranged for 2 February 2021 with another contractor. The landlord agreed to replace the window on 3 March 2021.
  2. The window was not replaced until 22 September 2021. This was over 18 months after the resident’s first report of a fault and six months after it was agreed a window replacement was needed. Once it agreed to replace the window, records provided by the landlord show that some delays were caused by internal discussions about who was responsible. The landlord has not provided this Service with any records about what action it took between 13 April and 6 July 2021. In an internal email dated 7 July 2021, the landlord said the member of staff who was dealing with the window had left and “it seems as though nothing has happened”. The work was further delayed between July and September 2021 by the resident, who did not want the work to happen during hot weather.
  3. Some delays were caused by the resident. For example, he refused a specific contractor that was scheduled to assess the window in January 2021, and in July 2021 he requested that work to fit the replacement window was delayed until after hot weather. However, the landlord did not carry out an initial inspection and did not take reasonable steps to fulfil its obligation under the tenancy agreement to replace the window in a reasonable time. The landlord did not keep the resident informed about the repair between April and July 2021. The resident had to spend time chasing the repair. The resident has told this Service that he was upset and worried about the window and was not able to settle. In its first complaint response, the landlord recognised its failure to replace the window in a reasonable time. It apologised and said it would improve how it deals with repairs. In its final response, it offered the resident £150 to compensate for the delay it caused. It is the view of this Service that, in all the circumstances, there was a failure in service in not replacing the window sooner, and this caused the resident unnecessary upset and worry. As a result, the landlord was not fair and reasonable in the award of compensation for the significant delay it caused.
  4. The landlord’s compensation procedure says that it can make discretionary payments of up to £250 in exceptional circumstances. It is the view of this Service that the delay was exceptional, and that the landlord should increase its compensation offer to £250.
  5. The resident stated that the landlord should pay compensation for heat loss caused by the draughty window. Following an earlier complaint about a door, the landlord paid the resident £500, which it said included compensation for additional heating costs. The landlord says that this is sufficient to cover heat loss caused by the window. The landlord has provided evidence to this Service that the resident refused a temporary repair that would have reduced/prevented heat loss. Having taken this into account, the opinion of this Service is that the landlord acted reasonably and fairly in not offering additional compensation for heat loss.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of workmanship on the replacement window.

  1. The landlord inspected the replacement window further to receiving a complaint from the resident. The tenancy agreement says that the landlord is responsible for ensuring repairs are of a “reasonable standard”. The landlord’s follow-up survey confirmed that it was satisfied with the quality of the window.
  2. The resident’s survey stated that the landlord had made a mistake by ordering a window that was too small. When the landlord fitted the window, it took the reasonable step of fitting a finishing trim to the window to cover any gaps, which ensured that the window was weather tight. The resident has told this Service that there are no draughts from the replacement window. The landlord acknowledged that there is a gap in the window cheeks, which it did not address when the window was fitted. The gap in the window cheeks only affects the aesthetic of the window. In its final response, the landlord offered to replace the window cheeks. In the view of this Service, the landlord has ensured that the property is fit for habitation. It has replaced the window to a reasonable standard, which means the window is in a reasonable state of repair and proper working order. There is, therefore, no requirement to replace the window a second time and there is no maladministration.
  3. The resident asked the landlord to refund the cost of the survey that he paid for. The tenancy agreement says the landlord will pay compensation for qualifying improvements. This could be reasonably interpreted to apply to other works commissioned by the resident, including property surveys. The tenancy agreement says, “you are not entitled to compensation if you do not have written permission for the improvement”. The landlord did not ask for or give written permission for the resident’s survey to be done. It has replaced the draughty window. Within the terms of the tenancy agreement, it is not reasonable for the landlord to refund the cost of the survey.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the delays in replacing the window at the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the standard of workmanship as the replacement window is of a reasonable standard.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to write to the resident to apologise for the significant delay it caused.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 in compensation in recognition of the upset and worry that the delays in replacing the window caused the resident. This is inclusive of the £150 previously offered by the landlord.
  3. The landlord is ordered to confirm to this Service that the above orders have been complied with within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review the approach to repairs following the defect period, as it said it would do in its stage 1 complaint response.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord reoffer to replace the window cheeks.