Complaint reference 05305 - Repairs

Under the terms of Mrs R’s tenancy agreement, the landlord was obliged to ‘keep in good repair, the structure and exterior of the premises including the internal walls and plasterwork’. Equally, Mrs R was obliged ‘to report… promptly any disrepair or defect for which the landlord is responsible in the structure or exterior of the premises…’ . The customer handbook was also clear about the parties’ responsibilities.

Mrs R reported to the landlord that she had removed wallpaper and found there were ‘big holes’ and the plaster was falling off. Although she had been told by the landlord’s repairs department that a staff member would visit no visit took place. When she telephoned again, she was told that she was responsible for carrying out the replastering work herself. There were no call recordings or details logged on the repairs computer system. The only record of the landlord’s contact with Mrs R about plastering works was after the work had been completed.

As Mrs R’s son had she arranged for the replastering work to be done promptly, at a cost of £1,500; and then asked the landlord to refund the cost. When the landlord refused she made a complaint about the matter.

At stage one the landlord explained that because it could not confirm any of Mrs R’s contact with it prior to carrying out the work and because the plasterwork was not inspected by the landlord prior to the replastering it could not agree to reimburse her. Following a subsequent visit to Mrs R by one of the landlord’s surveyors the landlord confirmed that if Mrs R provided a copy of her telephone bill it would consider her request.

The only number of the landlords on Mrs R’s phone bill was the reception number and it was not possible to confirm whether Mrs R spoke to the helpdesk. As the walls were now papered over it was not possible to verify how much plastering work had been done. The landlord also noted ‘this is the second instance in my recollection, where you have carried out work yourself and claimed money from us after the event’ and concluded that Mrs R was not entitled to a refund but it would consider a goodwill payment if she provided the receipt for the replastering work.

Mrs R provided a receipt for the replastering of three bedrooms, the hallway and downstairs toilet on 5 July 2008. According to her phone bills, she had contacted the landlord on ten occasions between 30 May 2008 and 5 July 2008. Although Mrs R had used the landlord’s ‘general enquiries’ number rather than ringing the helpdesk directly, it was reasonable to expect that calls would be transferred as appropriate and that a record would have been made as to the nature of her enquiries and the landlord’s response. Since the landlord had no record of these calls, it had no evidence to confirm or dispute Mrs R’s account of events.

The landlord did not initially accept the receipt provided by Mrs R because there was no company address, VAT registration number nor reference to the property where works were carried out but it offered £100 goodwill payment. It also appropriately informed her that she should get permission before carrying out work yourself as failure to do so was a breach of her tenancy agreement.’ Mrs R was unhappy with the offer but it was repeated when the matter was reviewed by a complaint panel.

Determination