Thrive Homes Limited (202100890)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100890

Thrive Homes Limited

26 August 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 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s kitchen refurbishment and the compensation it offered.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a three-bedroomed bungalow.
3. The landlord commissioned a new contractor to undertake refurbishment works to the resident’s kitchen. The works commenced on 9 December 2020 and were supposed to be completed within ten working days. The work was part of a pilot scheme, and a new contractor’s first job for the landlord.
4. In early 2021 (the exact date is not clear), the resident sent the landlord her detailed log of events and incidents over the period of the kitchen work. She summarised her complaint to be:
   1. The time taken so far to complete the work, and the wider conduct of the contractor’s staff.
   2. Not being able to utilise all her kitchen utilities, such as clothes washing, or the sink. This meant she needed to pay for takeaway food, as she could not cook.
   3. Several health and safety issues.
5. The landlord sent its stage one complaint response on 2 February 2021. It said that it:
   1. Acknowledged that the resident’s complaint concerned “the time, quality, safety and communication” of the kitchen refurbishment undertaken by its contractor at her property. Specifically, that the works took longer than the advised ten working days, the contractor did not provide the resident with temporary facilities at the end of each working day, and that the working conditions were “at times poor and unsafe”.
   2. Confirmed it had carried out site inspections, discussed the works undertaken during weekly meetings, the sub-contractor responsible for irregularities was removed from the job, it achieved its target of providing the resident with a “serviceable kitchen” in time for the Christmas holidays, and that “some snagging items” were to be addressed in January 2021.
   3. The landlord apologised for the inconveniences caused, acknowledged that various issues stemmed from the fact that this was a “pilot installation” by this contractor and that it should have “paid more attention” to the installation. The landlord confirmed that in recognition of its poor service, the contractor had offered £2000 compensation, a new tumble dryer, and new “high specification flooring to the kitchen” (in some of her correspondence with the landlord the resident said she had been told the dryer was not compensation, but was instead a “gift”.)
6. The landlord sent the resident a follow up to its complaint response on 15 February 2021. It explained how the £2000 compensation had been calculated, saying that £860 was for the resident’s time and trouble, and the remaining amount was compensation for her food expenses during the time she was without her kitchen, and for the lack of a functioning kitchen.
7. The resident emailed the landlord on 17 February 2021, asking it to escalate her complaint. A copy of the email has not been provided for this investigation.
8. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 3 March 2021. It explained that it understood the resident’s remaining concern to be that the compensation offered was not sufficient “given the time it has taken to complete the replacement of the kitchen and the risk to personal safety.” The landlord noted that its stage one response had accepted that the work took too long, and that there had been flaws in its contractor’s performance. The response had apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused, and explained how the landlord would use the experience to improve its service. The landlord further explained the steps it had taken once it became clear the work was not proceeding as planned (which had included removing a sub-contractor from the work, reviewing its processes, and increasing the frequency of progress meetings with the contactor), and apologised again for the failings in its service. However, it said that the £2000 compensation offered by its contractors was appropriate, and was significantly greater than would have been offered by the landlord itself, in line with its own compensation policy.
9. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s health and safety concerns, but explained why its own enquiries and inspections (which had included the electrical systems) had shown that “at no point was the safety of you and your family compromised.” The landlord concluded by repeating the compensation offer (£2000, dryer equipment, and flooring), which it said was still available, and explained how the resident could approach this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
10. The resident emailed the landlord promptly on 3 March 2021to query if it had read all her correspondence, because it had not addressed or acknowledged her reports that she was electrocuted twice because the contractor did not “earth the dishwasher switch”, which led to her contacting the emergency electricians. Furthermore, the resident noted that the refurbishment works commenced on 9 December 2020 and were yet to be completed. 

Assessment and findings

11. The resident has stated that she considers that the circumstances of her complaint have exacerbated her medical conditions, or that she and her family were exposed to health and safety risks during the replacement work. It is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on any link between the landlord’s handling of the works 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 inaction by the landlord. Likewise, issues of health and safety are matters for the relevant local authority, and are not ones the Housing Ombudsman is able to investigate.
12. There is no dispute by either party that the kitchen replacement work took longer than was originally hoped or planned for. There also appears to be no dispute that the conduct of the day to day work by the landlord’s contractors was not always of the expected standard. The impact on the resident and her family would have undeniably been significant over the approximately one month period when most of the work was done. Even more so given the time of year, just before Christmas. Part of that impact involved the resident’s inability to use the kitchen at all, and the need to rely on take away food and other means to feed her family.
13. When confronted with the resident’s concerns about the kitchen work, both during the period and in her complaints, it is clear that the landlord stepped in, in an attempt to address the problems that had arisen. Its actions included removing a sub-contractor from the project, and increasing its direct oversight. These actions were clearly relevant and reasonable in the circumstances of the complaint. It is also clear that the contractor itself realised its performance had not been of an appropriate standard, both in timeliness and professionalism, and which had had an impact on the resident and her family. In respect of that realisation it offered to remedy its failings by replacing parts of the property flooring, providing new washing equipment (regardless of whether it was compensation or a gift), and £2000 compensation.
14. The landlord explained to the resident that the compensation offered was significantly higher that it would have offered itself, and was reasonable in the circumstances of its service failings. The amount is also higher than the Ombudsman would usually expect to see in a case where there was considerable service failure but no evident long term impact, such as here.
15. Overall, there is no doubting the inconvenience and frustration the resident was put to during the kitchen replacement. Nonetheless, the landlord (and its contractor) acknowledged and apologised for the failings, explained how it would learn from the resident’s experiences, and provided significant financial and material compensation.

Determination (decision)

16. 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

17. The offer of compensation, made by the contractor, on behalf of the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances of the complaint.