Prima Housing Group Limited (202300773)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300773

Prima Housing Group Limited

27 September 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for:
1. A replacement kitchen.
2. A replacement bathroom.
The Ombudsman has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She succeeded her late Father’s tenancy, and the landlord granted her a new assured tenancy from 8 May 2017.
In September 2022 the resident asked the landlord when the kitchen was due to be replaced. On 7 October 2022 the landlord told her the estimated replacement date was 2039. The resident complained and the landlord agreed to send a surveyor to assess the kitchen. It was booked for 4 November 2022.
The landlord did not arrive for the appointment. When the resident called, the landlord apologised and said it would be in contact on Monday 7 November 2022 to rebook the appointment. The next documented contact the landlord and resident had about the kitchen was in February 2023. On 17 February 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that she was still waiting for an outcome to her complaint about the kitchen and bathroom replacement dates.
The landlord booked an appointment for 28 February 2023. The surveyor reported that the kitchen was in good condition, a few repairs were needed, and that the resident wished to make a complaint.
On 14 March 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the internal complaints process and contacted the Ombudsman for advice. In May 2023, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord, and it raised a stage 1 complaint for the resident. Prior to this, the landlord had not logged a formal complaint. It visited to assess the kitchen. The outcome mirrored the previous inspection, that the kitchen needed a few repairs but was in good condition overall. The bathroom was not assessed.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response partially upheld the complaint for the poor communication in respect of the complaint handling. It did not change the projected replacement dates for the kitchen or bathroom. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal process.
Before taking the complaint to stage 2, the landlord arranged a further inspection of the kitchen and bathroom on 3 July 2023. It sent the resident a letter to confirm it had moved the kitchen replacement date forward to the 2026/27 financial year. The communication also stated that the resident was responsible for all kitchen repairs as it was her own installation. The letter did not mention the bathroom.
At the end of August 2023, the resident told the landlord she felt the replacement dates were still too far off and the landlord arranged the stage 2 panel hearing. The panel was held on 8 September 2023 and the landlord confirmed the outcome in writing on 12 September 2023. The panel concluded that the change in tenancy from the resident’s father to her meant that she was not responsible for the repairs, as it was her father who had installed the kitchen. It agreed to move forward the kitchen replacement year to 2024/25 and the bathroom replacement year remained as 2028/29. The landlord offered interim repairs and partially upheld the complaint, as the stage 1 response had not addressed all the resident’s complaint.

Post internal complaint process

In July 2024 the resident’s kitchen was measured, and she picked her kitchen units and worktops. The resident is waiting for the installation date.

Assessment and findings

Replacement kitchen

The landlord took too long to inform the resident of the expected replacement date of the kitchen. On 12 September 2022, after the resident asked for the date, the landlord swiftly emailed its contractor for the information. It had the information (2039), by 27 September 2022 but did not inform the resident until 7 October 2022. The landlord acted unreasonably. The resident did not know when to expect an answer and had to chase the landlord to get a response. The landlord was not customer focused.
On 4 November 2022 the landlord did not arrive for the arranged appointment to inspect the kitchen. It apologised to the resident and said it would call her on Monday 7 November 2022 to rebook. The Ombudsman understands that from time-to-time appointments are missed and the landlord tried to put things right with an apology and a new appointment. This would have been reasonable had the landlord called the resident on 7 November 2022 and made a new appointment. There is no record or evidence if it did, and this was unreasonable of the landlord. It did not follow up on its proposed action and the resident did not know what was happening. The landlord was not focused on putting things right for the resident and this may have further deteriorated the landlord and resident relationship.
On 17 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord, and it arranged an inspection for 28 February 2023. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy does not stipulate a timescale for inspections. The Ombudsman finds that 8 working days was a reasonable timeframe. The landlord acted reasonably by arranging the assessment of the kitchen. However, this action should have happened when the resident first expressed her dissatisfaction with the expected replacement date. A final outcome for the resident was unnecessarily prolonged.
Following the February inspection the kitchen replacement date remained as 2039. It based this on the findings of its 2019 stock condition survey and the inspection. The landlord had recommended a few repairs. It was reasonable of the landlord to rely on the 2019 survey and the recent inspection. The Ombudsman recognises that budget is a key issue for social landlords in determining which properties to upgrade first, and that the focus should be on properties with reduced facilities.
On 22 May 2023 the landlord raised a stage 1 complaint. Following this, it asked the resident if it could assess the kitchen again. This was a reasonable request, and the landlord sought to get a second opinion on the condition of the kitchen. The landlord kept detailed notes and photos from its inspections in February and May 2023. These helped the landlord to complete a detailed stage 1 complaint response with its outcome backed up by evidence. From a repair perspective, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer to make repairs to the kitchen instead of agreeing to replace the entire kitchen. The resident refused the repairs. The landlord acted reasonably. It was resolution focused and wanted to ensure its decision was fair.
On 5 June 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord asked if it could assess the kitchen again. On 3 July 2023 the kitchen was assessed. The delay was due to the resident’s holiday plans and the landlord acted reasonably to ensure the date was convenient with the resident. At this assessment the landlord found that it was not reasonable to wait until 2039 to replace the kitchen, based on an estimated installation date of 1997 for the current kitchen. The replacement year was moved forward to the 2026/27 financial year. The landlord shared the new proposed date and the notes from the assessment with the resident. The landlord was transparent and accepted a different view on the kitchen from those previous. The landlord acted reasonably.
On 19 July 2023 the landlord told the resident that she was responsible for any repairs on the kitchen as it was her own installation. The resident had previously mentioned in correspondence with the landlord that it refused to complete repairs as her family had purchased the kitchen. Her late father had installed the kitchen, but she had a new tenancy, making it irrelevant that the kitchen was fitted by her father. The landlord recognised its error. On 12 September 2023, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response explained the error and confirmed the resident was not responsible for repairs. The landlord’s response did not specifically apologise for this error and the Ombudsman finds that this was a missed opportunity to put things right. The resident may have been worried or distressed at the thought of being responsible for all the repairs. The landlord should have said sorry.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was detailed and explained how it had reached its decisions. It included information on:
1. Why the kitchen had a replacement date of 2039 and the reasons this may have happened.
2. Decent homes standard life cycles of replacements compared to the landlord’s planned life cycles (the landlords being more frequent).
3. The landlord’s planned maintenance information for tenants.
4. Decent homes standard and further explanation by the landlord.
5. 2019 stock condition survey information and how future surveys may adjust the replacement dates.
6. The landlord’s repair offer at stage 1 and why the resident had refused the offer.
7. The landlord’s revised kitchen replacement date of 2026/27 and then further revised date of 2024/25.
The landlord tried to ensure that the resident knew why it made the decisions it did, what it based them on, and backed them up with evidence and explanations. It was open and accountable for its decisions. The landlord acted reasonably. It was focused on making sure the resident could see the process of its decision making.
The landlord agreed to bring forward the replacement of the kitchen to its 2024/25 replacement programme. It said there was ambiguity around the exact kitchen installation date, and it wanted to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion for the resident. It was customer focused; it had listened to the resident and made a decision within its remit to satisfy its resident’s request. The landlord understood it did not have sufficient evidence of the installation date to rely upon the decent homes standard kitchen life cycles or its own planned life cycles. The landlord acted reasonably.
In summary, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen. Although frustrating, the initial delays in inspecting the kitchen did not have a permanent adverse impact on the resident. Each time the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision, it listened and reassessed the situation. It brought forward the kitchen replacement by 14 years.

Replacement bathroom

The landlord’s repair log tells us that the inspection booked on 28 February 2023 was for both the kitchen and the bathroom. The bathroom was not inspected. Furthermore, on 24 May 2023 when the landlord reassessed the kitchen, the bathroom was not inspected. Initially the resident appeared to be complaining about the kitchen replacement date but by 17 February 2023 she had mentioned the bathroom replacement date too. The landlord should have ensured both were inspected. The landlord acted unreasonably.
The landlord attempted to put its mistake right. On 5 June 2023, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response offered to carry out any necessary repairs or revisit to inspect the bathroom. This was a reasonable response and showed the landlord was willing to assess the bathroom’s replacement date and keep it in good condition until such time. The landlord acted reasonably.
On 3 July 2023 the landlord inspected the bathroom and reported that the condition of the bathroom meant that the proposed replacement date of 2028/29 was reasonable. The landlord’s records found that part of the bathroom had been refurbished in 2007. The decent homes standard tells us that age alone does not render a component non decent. They must be both old and in poor condition to satisfy the standard. The landlord acted reasonably by checking its records and inspecting the bathroom.
On 8 September 2023 the landlord’s stage 2 panel found that it should have looked at the bathroom in February 2023 and apologised that it did not. The landlord acted reasonably. It was open that it had made a mistake and tried to put things right by apologising and organising repairs to the bathroom.
The landlord proposed that an attempt to re-enamel the bath and replace any tarnished fittings was worthy. It tried to reassure the resident that a skilled tradesperson could successfully remove the bath panel and tiling in such a way to be reattached afterwards. The landlord had listened to the resident’s concerns and tried to assure her. The landlord was committed to keeping the bathroom in good repair until it was replaced. The landlord also raised orders to investigate and repair the taps, drainage, and leaks from the shower. These required follow on works to the flagging and gutters at the property. The landlord understood its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the property in repair, and the decent homes standard, that the property is in a reasonable state of repair. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately.
The landlord monitored the works to ensure their timely completion. Evidence has been provided that showed the landlord’s complaint officer oversaw the actions from the stage 2 panel and all actions are marked as complete. They were proactive in their communication internally and to the resident. The landlord acted reasonably. It was customer focused and committed to putting things right for the resident. Part of the evidence provided has not copied across an entire document. The Ombudsman can see the stage 2 complaint action to re-enamel the bath appears to be complete but cannot see the entirety of the comments box. The resident says the work is not completed. She has told the Ombudsman that it has not been done because the landlord said it was not possible. The Ombudsman makes a recommendation to the landlord to speak to the resident to confirm the situation.
In summary, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a replacement bathroom. The landlord’s non-financial actions were relevant and proportionate to its failings, but they did not quite reflect the detriment to the resident. She went to considerable time and trouble to progress her bathroom complaint and had to wait a long time for a final outcome. Had the landlord inspected the bathroom earlier the repairs may have been completed sooner. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (the landlord did not have a compensation policy in place at the time of this complaint) a compensation payment of £100 would have been appropriate. An order is made below.

Associated complaint handling

Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to its residents. An effective complaints process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord missed the resident’s requests to raise a complaint, which lead to confusion for both parties and a delay of the final outcome. However, when the landlord did raise the complaint, it was managed effectively, with the resident at the centre.
The resident’s contact to the landlord was referred to as a complaint as detailed below:
1. On 7 October 2022 the resident’s call was logged under the category complaint.
2. On 27 October 2022 the landlord noted in the resident’s repair log that it had called the resident about her informal complaint.
3. On 17 February 2023 the resident called about her complaint and the landlord logged it under the category complaint.
4. On 20 February 2023 the landlord tried to call the resident and stated in the call notes that it was about the complaint logged.
The landlord’s complaint policy recognises a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions of lack of action by the organisation. This mirrors the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code). On 7 October 2022 the resident complained about the replacement dates of her kitchen and bathroom. This was an expression of dissatisfaction with the landlord’s answer to her queries. The landlord should have recognised it as such and logged a complaint at stage 1 of its internal complaints process. The landlord acted inappropriately. The resident thought she had a complaint logged with the landlord. In not logging the complaint, the resident’s issues were prolonged, and she did not have an outcome. It delayed her ability to escalate her complaint.
The landlord’s complaint policy does not have an informal stage. The landlord’s policy statement tells us it aims to resolve service failure at the first point of contact. This should not be interpreted as an informal stage but rather an attempt to quickly resolve the complaint and provide a complaint outcome that may be resolved at stage 1. It was inappropriate for the landlord to refer to the resident’s complaint as informal. It may have been a reason that it did not get recognised and logged as a formal complaint at the time.
The landlord logged the complaint on 22 May 2023, after the Ombudsman contacted it on behalf of the resident. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint handling was good. It was person centred (on the resident) and proactive. It kept the resident informed. Its stage 1 complaint response was on time, detailed and attempted to put things right. The landlord acted appropriately. It was customer and resolution focused.
On 5 June 2023 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord acknowledged the escalation the next day. She asked for a surveyor to assess the kitchen and bathroom, not a repair person. Due to the resident’s holiday, the landlord and resident agreed that the stage 2 ‘clock’ was stopped. The landlord told the resident it would restart once the visit was arranged. On 19 July 2023, following the surveyor’s visit, the landlord sent a complaint response that was neither a stage 1 nor a stage 2 response. In effect it was an extra stage. It could be determined that while it was clear the landlord was trying to resolve the complaint to the satisfaction of the resident, it was also stalling the resident’s request to go to the landlord’s stage 2 panel. The landlord should have continued to resolve the complaint while preparing for the panel hearing. The landlord acted inappropriately and further prolonged the internal complaint’s process.
On 8 September 2023, the landlord’s stage 2 panel was held, 69 working days after the resident’s escalation. The landlord’s complaint policy tells us the panel will be held without unreasonable delay and a full response provided within 20 working days of the request to escalate the complaint. It explains this can be varied by mutual agreement but should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. The evidence provided, as part of this investigation, does not show the Ombudsman enough detail to prove that the entire delay was by mutual agreement and with good reason. The landlord acted inappropriately, and its extra response may have confused the resident as to what stage of the process she was at. The resident had to contact the Ombudsman for support with her complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 panel in this case is an excellent example of effective complaint resolution. It provided all the information required as per paragraph 5.16 of the Code at the time of the complaint. It gave details of the landlord’s legal and statutory obligations in an easy to follow way. It explained clearly how it had come to its decisions and showed it had listened to the resident. It followed up its proposed actions diligently to ensure they were completed and communicated effectively with the resident. The landlord acted appropriately and reasonably.
The landlord acknowledged some of its complaint handling failings. Its stage 1 complaint response found opportunities to address the matter via the complaints process were missed and recognised this resulted in confusion. It upheld the complaint handling element of the complaint and apologised. The landlord told the resident it would learn from the case in line with its ‘lessons learnt’ approach. The stage 2 complaint response did not recognise the extra response on 19 July 2023 as a failing and so did not consider complaint handling as part of its response.
While the landlord’s stage 1 response was reasonable, in that it attempted to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, it did not go far enough. At stage 2, the landlord did not acknowledge that its extra response was outside of its published policy, could cause confusion and ultimately delayed the resident’s final outcome. In the Ombudsman’s assessment it was not a fair remedy. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, for a remedy that is not quite proportionate to the failings identified by the investigation, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £100. Further details are in the orders section of the report.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s associated complaint handling. While it demonstrated excellent complaint handling at times, its failures and disproportionate complaint handling remedy, amount to service failure. The resident did not know what was happening and the landlord’s attempts to resolve the complaint, muddied and delayed the complaint handling process.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a replacement bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise, in writing, for the impact of its failures on the resident.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200, made up of:
1. £100 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in relation to its response to the resident’s request for a replacement bathroom.
2. £100 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in its complaint handling.

Recommendation

The landlord to consider speaking to the resident to discuss and confirm the outcome of the stage 2 action to re-enamel the bath.