West Kent Housing Association (202102527)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102527

West Kent Housing Association

30 July 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of paintwork to the back door.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a one–bedroom adapted bungalow.
3. The resident has limited mobility and is a wheelchair user.
4. Paragraph 1(a) of Part C of the resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will repair and maintain the structure and the outside of the property, including outside doors and door frames.
5. The landlord operates a two-stage complaint policy as follows:
   1. At the Making It Right stage (stage one), the landlord will try to resolve the matter immediately. If this is not possible, the complaint will be passed to the most appropriate person who will contact the resident and investigate the complaint. A full response will be given within 20 working days.
   2. At the Complaint Review stage (stage two), the landlord will conduct an independent review of the stage one response and investigate the issues the resident remains unhappy with. A response will be giving within 20 working days. This timescale may be extended by 10 working days only if discussed with the resident.
6. The landlord’s compensation policy offers discretionary payments for inconvenience and goodwill ‘where a claimant has experienced inconvenience because of service delivery failures. This can also be offered when we recognise it’s appropriate to rebuild relationships or make a conciliatory offer.’.

Summary of events

7. The resident’s rear door was installed by a subcontractor on 5 and 6 August 2019 as part of a package of major disabled adaptations that were carried out at the property.
8. Just over eleven months later, on 29 July 2020, the resident raised concerns about the paintwork on the door. The landlord’s internal records state that the resident was concerned about a white mark across the bottom of the door which she was told at installation would wipe off, but did not. The landlord has provided evidence to show this was logged on its internal systems on the same date. The evidence shows that this issue was raised with the contractor on 3 August 2020.
9. It is important to note that the resident also raised concerns regarding the lock on her door. The landlord’s made an offer to resolve this issue to the resident’s satisfaction prior to the complaint being referred to this Service. The Ombudsman has not considered any points relating to the door lock in this investigation.
10. On 29 September 2020, the paintwork on the rear door was touched up by the contractor as a gesture of goodwill.
11. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 2 March 2021. She stated that she wanted the sub-contractor who installed her door to be ‘held accountable for their action.’.
12. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email as a formal stage one complaint on 3 March 2021. The landlord explained that its contractor had authorised the door to be installed by a specialist subcontractor and the complaint had been passed to the contractor who would respond within 20 working days.
13. The contractor contacted the resident on 29 March 2021 and explained that its subcontractor and a surveyor would attend the property on 1 April 2021. The surveyor reported in an internal email that ‘the damage to the bottom external door face has been touched in and there is a slight difference on colour… There are no missed spots or evidence of further damage and the repair is to a good standard.’.
14. The contractor wrote to the resident on 7 April 2021 and confirmed that ‘the quality of paintwork was inspected and found to be at a good standard.’. This letter was considered its stage one response.
15. On 9 April 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to dispute the stage one response. She stated that the paint scratch was on the door from ‘day one’ and when she had complained about this ‘someone came and tried to make a repair with hand brushing it sideways with an incorrect colour’ which she said she was unhappy with and tried to get corrected ever since. She explained that the only two acceptable solutions to the issue were: ‘1) effect a good repair 2) replace the door’.
16. During a telephone call with the landlord on 12 April 2021, the resident explained that the damage was done to the door when it was first installed, and she was told that it was dust which could take months to rectify. She stated that this was the reason she hadn’t complained to the landlord soon after the installation. The resident also explained that she was unhappy with the repair carried out in September 2020 as the paint had been touched up against the grain and the paint used was the wrong colour. She said she was told the colour would fade, but she would have to ‘give it months’.’
17. The resident said that she was told there was nothing more that could be done about the paintwork on the door and so, if that was the case, she expected a new door. She informed the landlord that ‘I’d expect them to replace the door if they can’t rectify it to a new standard’.’
18. During a telephone call with the resident on 16 April 2021, the landlord explained that the paint damage on the door would not warrant it being replaced with a new door. The landlord offered a decoration pack or vouchers for paint. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord was not holding the subcontractor responsible for telling her that she should keep cleaning the door to remove the dust. She said that she was told that the repair would make the door look as new but that did not happen. She explained that she felt taken advantage of as she was stressed on the day of installation and therefore didn’t want to cause a fuss over dust.
19. On 23 April 2021, the landlord contacted the resident with the outcome of its stage two investigation. It explained that it could not warrant replacing the whole door because of a mark on the paintwork and instead would do what the resident asked in her email dated 9 April 2021 and repaint the whole door. The resident expressed concerns that this would make the door look even worse and ‘that’s letting the company get off very, very lightly’, and that the stress that the situation had caused was not being acknowledged.
20. The landlord issued its stage two response on 28 April 2021. It agreed that it should have done some things differently and it acknowledged and apologised for mistakes made. It reiterated that it could not replace the door as it was still functional despite the mark, however as the resident was not happy with the contractor’s work, it would arrange for the whole door to be repainted in one colour. It also offered £50 compensation as a gesture of goodwill due to the stress and inconvenience caused during the experience with the door and lock.
21. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 4 June 2021. She explained that she would like the door to be repainted to the same standard as the previous door and if this was not possible, she would like a new door.
22. In a telephone call to this Service on 4 June 2021, the resident stated that she only wants a replacement door in resolution of her complaint and no longer wants the door to be repainted. She explained that she wants the door to look like it does in the brochure.
23. In a telephone call to this Service on 18 May 2021, the resident explained that she considers some of the landlord’s actions to constitute disability discrimination. This Service is unable to make a finding of discrimination as this is most appropriately decided by a court. This report does not therefore assess whether the landlord’s actions constituted disability discrimination, but considers whether the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with relevant obligations and whether it acted reasonably.

Assessment and findings

24. Whilst the landlord has not accepted responsibility in relation to the damaged paintwork, it agreed to repair the damage. The landlord has acknowledged that the resident was not happy with the standard of the paint repair as she explained that the contractor painted against the grain and the colour used did not match the rest of the door.
25. Although the surveyor reported the paint repair to have been completed to a good standard, the landlord agreed to repaint the whole door as a goodwill gesture. This was one of the acceptable solutions the resident had suggested on 9 April 2021.
26. The landlord’s offer of £50 compensation falls into the minor impact tier of the landlord’s compensation policy for calculating discretionary payments for inconvenience and goodwill. This is reasonable as the landlord has acknowledged that this issue caused the resident inconvenience and stress however, the impact of the paintwork issue was minor as the resident did not report this to the landlord until almost a year after the initial installation, and more than five months after the initial repair, despite having telephone and in person contact with the landlord several times during this period.
27. The landlord is obliged to repair and maintain the external doors of the property. The landlord’s view that it would not be proportionate to replace a functioning door due to damaged paintwork, a seemingly cosmetic issue which can be improved, is an appropriate and proportionate one.
28. The landlord has noted the resident’s concerns in relation to the paintwork on the door and has attempted to resolve these in a reasonable manner. While it is understood that the resident hoped for the new door to appear cosmetically ‘as new’ and without flaws in the paintwork, the landlord has offered to repaint the entire door. This is a reasonable offer of resolution which, as far as possible, puts the resident in the position she would have been in had the paintwork not been damaged.

Determination (decision)

29. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to its response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of paintwork to the back door.

Reasons

30. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the damaged paintwork to her door. Whilst the landlord did not accept responsibility for the damage, it did accept that the resident’s concerns and the standard of the initial repainting caused her stress and inconvenience. In recognition of this, the landlord’s offer to repaint the whole door one colour or provide vouchers or the resident to purchase her own paint, plus £50 compensation is fair and reasonable.

Recommendation

31. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident the £50 compensation offered in its stage two response.
    2. Re-offer vouchers for the door to be painted, or arrange for the whole door to be repainted in one colour of the resident’s choosing.