Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Thanet District Council (202100615)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100615

Thanet District Council

17 February 2022


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 the landlords’ handling of the residents’ concerns about the condition of the kitchen including the lack of heating.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant since 20 October 2003. The property is described as a two-bedroom house.
  2. The resident has told us that both her and her husband suffer from a number of long –standing medical conditions and her husband has a physical disability.
  3. The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to maintain the structure of the home including external drains and pipes. The agreement notes that the gas and electricity meters are the responsibility of the supplier of the service.
  4. The landlord’s website has a repairs section that informs its residents to report repairs to its contractor and informs the resident of its responsibilities for general repair and maintenance of  its home including plumbing, drainage and electrics.
  5. The Regulator of Social Housing sets consumer standards and its role is to intervene where failure to meet the standards has caused, or could have caused, serious harm to tenants. The Home Standard includes ensuring that homes meet the Decent Homes Standard which relate to the standard of repair and thermal comfort.
  6. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or, at the very least, minimizing potential hazards. Under this rating system the landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, including damp and mould growth and have regard to the current occupant and any vulnerability they may have. HHSRS says that the landlord should take action according to the severity.
  7.  The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure recognising that on occasion it may not get things right. At the first stage the complaint is answered within 10 working days and within 20 working days at its final stage.
  8. The resident’s partner has corresponded with this Service on the resident’s behalf at points during the complaint investigation. Any contact from the resident’s partner will be referred to as being from the ‘the resident’ in this report.

Summary of events

  1. The resident advised that it had been raising the condition of the kitchen for some time with the landlord and provided this Service with a copy of an email to the landlord in February 2020.
  2. There is limited information on the landlord’s records, however they show that an inspection of the resident’s home was carried out on 10 November 2020.The landlord’s repair records show a works order was raised on 1 December 2020  to replace the meter cupboard doors with louvre doors, fill all holes inside the meter cupboard in the kitchen and carry out any minor kitchen repairs including the damaged worktop. It records that the resident is to confirm the finish of the worktop. Further notes add that there was a delay in the delivery of the louvre doors, and in light of the delay, it was agreed that the doors should be made.
  3. The Member of Parliament (MP) made representation to the landlord on behalf of the resident on 3 December and 16 December 2020 regarding their dissatisfaction with the kitchen layout and that the landlord was unwilling to change the design.
  4. The landlord’s adaptation surveyor visited on 23 December  2020 and reported that the residents had requested a redesign of their kitchen and that there was no available space to accommodate a radiator. He reported that:

a.     the residents’ had refused the installation of the hallway radiator as it would likely involve disturbing the pipework in the bathroom which they had refurbished at their own expense,

b.     there was minor mould growth at floor level adjacent to the back door which would be resolved once the mould was treated and heating was installed,

c.      there was no evidence of neglect however the area around the pipework within the meter cupboard and above the boiler had not been made good.

He concluded that the kitchen was fit for purpose, although heating was required and advised that the residents could obtain an occupational therapy (OT) assessment regarding the suitability of the kitchen.

  1. The landlord provided an update to the MP following its surveyor’s inspection  on 23 December 2020 advising that:  

a.     the residents’ kitchen was fitted 5 years ago, whilst it was small it was   considered to be in good condition,

b.     the kitchen meter doors were due to be replaced on 4 January 2021

c.      it was investigating the possibility of installing a plinth heater in the kitchen and a radiator into the hallway. The installation of the hallway radiator would involve drilling into the bathroom tiles.

  1. The MP wrote to the landlord on 4 January 2021 providing 4 videos of the property and the additional concerns that the residents experienced using the kitchen due to their medical conditions.
  2. The landlord’s internal record dated 5 January notes the possibility of fitting the plinth heater into the bottom stair riser to enhance the warmth of the lower half of the property.
  3. The landlord responded to the MP on 7 January 2021  reiterating its position that the kitchen is fit for purpose and providing the report from its surveyor. It acknowledged  the difficulties outlined by the resident in relation to the kitchen  and it recommended that the resident  contact Adult Social Care to request an OT assessment regarding the suitability of the kitchen. As the resident had agreed for the installation of the  plinth heater, the landlord would proceed with its installation.
  4. The landlord’s internal records show that the contractor surveyed the residents home on 13 January 2021 for the installation of the plinth heater.
  5. The MP wrote to the landlord on 3 February 2021 forwarding an email from  the resident which advised that :

a.     they had experienced delays, missed appointments and despite the landlords’ inspection the plinth heater had not been installed,

b.     the incorrect plinth heater had been ordered as measurements had not  been taken by its contractor,

c.      there were holes in the meter cupboard and no one had turned up to measure for the meter cupboard doors.

  1. The landlord’s internal records dated 4 February 2021 note that its surveyor advised that the residents had refused the installation  of the plinth heater, in his opinion, the heater could be fitted with the reposition of the base unit and rerouting of the plumbing.
  2. The landlord responded to the MP on 8 February 2021 advising that they had contacted its contractors on the day of the installation and it had been informed that the resident had refused to have the heater installed even though there was room to accommodate the heater. It would deal with the communication under the complaints procedure which would provide the resident with escalation rights including those to this Service.
  3. The landlord’s records show that its contractor advised on 9 February 2021 that the installation of the plinth heater was booked in for 26 February 2021, however  the tenant had advised he did not want the heating installed.
  4. It is noted in the landlord’s internal records of 12 February 2021 noted that the appointment booked for the  26 January 2021 did not take place as the operative was unwell and the resident was notified.
  5. The landlord responded at the first stage of its complaint procedure on 19 February 2021 regarding the installation of the plinth heater, the meter cupboard doors and the kitchen layout. It concluded that:

a.     it could have communicated better with the resident regarding the installation of the plinth heater

b.     there were two viable solutions to resolve the inadequate heating; either the installation of a radiator on the landing or a plinth heater installed in the kitchen

c.      apologised for the unreasonable delay in the fitting of the cupboard doors and explained that the supplier could no longer supply the doors

d.     reiterated its position that the kitchen is compliant with the decent homes standard, however if the resident provided permission a prioritised  (OT) assessment would be organised

e.     following the review of the complaint it had recognised the need to improve communication with its contractors regarding repairs.

  1. On 22 February 2021 a works order was raised to renew the louvre cupboards doors, adjust a kitchen unit so a heater can be installed and repair a shelf in the cupboard.  The landlord’s records show that the louvre doors were replaced on 30 June 2021.
  2. The residents remained dissatisfied and escalated their complaint to the final stage of the complaints procedure on 2 March 2021 disputing:

a.     that they had turned down the installation of the radiator to the landing when in actuality the engineer advised that the work could not be carried out without drilling into their bathroom

b.     the inspector who visited on 23 December 2020 had not provided a proper explanation to their request for a larger radiator to be installed on the staircase and that the radiator in the hallway which was over 20 years old could not expend a reasonable amount of heat

c.      that it was unlikely that the condition of the meter kitchen cupboards could meet the repair standard, the extractor fan in the kitchen was at least 20 years old and contrary to the  regulations, the meters were still located inside the property

d.     damp and mould were evident on the walls due to the defective brickwork on either side of the back door

e.     as they had experienced a lack of communication over the past 10 months they had to communicate with their landlord through their MP

f.        the plinth heater was not offered until 23 December 2020, they did not refuse the installation of the plinth heater. The plinth heater was too large to fit  in the cupboard and the only option given was the down blowing heater which was not suitable due to her husband’s medical condition

g.     the landlord failed to keep them informed of the appointment times to measure for the cupboard doors, appointments were made without prior notice and the contractor did not attend or contact them to cancel the appointment  of 26 January 2021. When they contacted the contractor that’s when they learnt the engineer was unwell

h.     they were treated differently to their neighbours, who had more work carried out to their home than they had received

i.        agreed to the offer of the fast-track OT assessment as the kitchen could not be used in a practical way.

  1. On 17 March 2021 the landlord’s repair record shows a works order to renew the extractor fan in the kitchen, carry out an electrical test and install additional sockets if needed. The records show the kitchen extractor fan was replaced and electrical test carried out on 2 July 2021. The landlord noted that the property did not have a mains wired smoke alarm in the property and recommended its installation.
  2. The landlords record on 22 March 2021 noted that the contractor was unaware of the specification of the specified heater as it was not a standard council product  and following a visit by the engineer, another electric unit has been specified that would fit the residents’ home as intended with an installation date for 9 April 2021.
  3. The landlord responded at the final stage of its complaint procedure on 30 March 2021 and explained that it had reviewed the responses previously provided by its ALMO. In addition, the landlord:

a.     apologised for the confusion over the plinth heater as its review had found that the resident had refused the blow heater and not the plinth heater. It agreed for its surveyor to oversee the installation of the plinth heater

b.     apologised for the delays and confusion regarding the fitting of the meter cupboard door  

c.      reaffirmed that the kitchen meets the decent homes standard and that an urgent referral had been made for an occupational therapy assessment

d.     advised that the extractor fan in the kitchen would be replaced, a new electrical safety check would be completed and a repair to remedy the hole in the top of the tall cupboard.

  1. The landlords internal record shows that the appointment raised for 9 April 2021 to carry out the electrical inspection, install the plinth heater and extractor fan did not take place as:

a.     The appointment was rebooked for 7 May 2021 as the residents had a medical appointment  on that day,

b.     the appointment for 7 May 2021 was cancelled by the resident on the advice of his solicitor. The appointment was rearranged to 14 June 2021 but it was noted that the residents did not want the plinth heater installed.

  1. After the complaint process was completed, a problem with the stopcock caused a leak in the residents’ kitchen at the beginning of April 2021; therefore, this is not the subject of this investigation. It is also noted that the landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection on 14 April 2021 who recommended work to remedy the leak, to investigate the source of the water pooling and a repair of the external bricks and to seal the door frame to remedy the dampness. The contractor visited on 19 May 2021 to carry out a mould wash and reported that there was no mould to be cleaned.
  2. The resident escalated their complaint to this Service on 4 May 2021; they requested that the kitchen be renovated and for the heating, damp and the leak to be resolved as the damp was affecting their health.
  3. The resident advised this Service in December 2021, that he had made a disrepair claim, the landlord  confirmed it received his claim on 21 December 2021. As it is not evident that legal proceedings have commenced, the Ombudsman will consider the above complaints which exhausted the landlord’s complaints process on 30 March 2021.

Assessment and findings.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has advised that the concerns about the condition of the kitchen has been raised with the landlord for some time and provided evidence of communication dated February 2020. The landlord in its final complaint response explained that prior to 1 October 2020 their property was managed by an Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO) and since October 2020 the Council now had responsibility for housing. It recognised that she had not received proper responses to the issues she had raised about the condition and heating in her home.  Therefore, this investigation will focus on the events after 1 October 2020.

Kitchen condition

  1. It is not the role of this Service to decide whether the kitchen at the property requires improvement but rather to determine whether the landlord responded to the residents’ concerns about the kitchen in a reasonable time frame and in accordance with its repairing responsibilities and any another applicable procedures.
  2. The resident complained to their landlord about the size of their kitchen advising they experienced difficulty using it efficiently and compared it to similar properties nearby. The Decent Homes Standard sets out the criteria for dwellings and defines a kitchen as reasonably modern if it is 20 years old or less and has adequate space and layout.
  3. The landlord informed the MP that its surveyor had carried out two inspections during November 2020.  The landlord has not provided copies of these inspection reports neither has an explanation been provided for their absence. It is good practice for a landlord to maintain accurate records as it enables it to respond accurately to issues raised especially when the resident has challenged the landlords’ actions and its response to the condition of the residents home.
  4. The landlord carried out a further inspection in December 2020 and it was reasonable for it to rely on the professional advice that it received that the kitchen layout complied with the Decent Homes Standard as it was less than 20 years old and that in terms of modern-day standards, the size of the kitchen is small.
  5. In its final complaint response, it considered the residents’ representations and agreed to an urgent occupational therapy assessment to take place to address their concerns with the layout of the kitchen. This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take as it was aware that the residents were unhappy with the kitchen layout.
  6. The landlord agreed to change the doors to the meter cupboard. In its final complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delay, confusion and the length of time taken to install the doors as when it initially agreed to change the doors, it found that its supplier could not provide the louvre doors and then had to arrange for the doors to be made. The landlord’s records show these was fitted on 30 June 2021. The landlord upheld this aspect of the complaint, recognising that the delay was unacceptable and appropriately apologised to the resident for this. However, in its assessment it did not consider whether it should award compensation for this service failure.
  7. The resident complained about the holes in the meter cupboard. The landlord repair record shows it raised a repair in December 2020 to fill all the holes. The record is showing as completed however the resident has advised that the work has not been carried out.
  8. The resident requested for the removal of the utility meters from his kitchen. This was not addressed in the landlord’s complaint response. This is not within the landlord’s repairing obligation and the repairs policy explains that utility meters are the responsibility for the utility provider therefore this is not a decision for his landlord to make.
  9. In its final complaint response, the landlord agreed to replace the extractor fan in the kitchen. A works order was raised and the first appointment did not take place due to a medical appointment and the second appointment was cancelled by the resident. The extractor fan was due to be replaced on 14 June 2021 but its records show it was replaced in July 2021, whilst the landlord re-arranged the appointments at the resident’s request this is a shortfall in the service provided as it took almost four months to complete the work. .
  10. The surveyor inspection in December 2020 identified that the lack of heating in the kitchen was causing mould growth by the back door and that a radiator could not be accommodated in the kitchen. The landlord proposed to remedy the damp by installing a plinth heater, its contractor did not order the correct unit and it accepted in its final complaint response that a mistake had taken place and apologised for the error and advised how it proposed to learn from the mistake by ensuring it worked closer and communicated better with its contractor in similar situations. Though it accepted the error occurred, the landlord did not consider awarding compensation for its service failure.
  11. The residents expressed that the heating in the hallway was inadequate due to the  age of the radiator and requested a larger one to increase the heat in the hallway and enhance the temperature in the kitchen. The repair records evidence that the landlord considered options to increase the heat by offering to fit the plinth heater into the bottom stair riser or to install a larger radiator on the landing. This is in accordance with its responsibilities under the HRSS to take appropriate action to remedy the damp and as there are limitations due to the size of the kitchen. However, as the installation of the radiator on the landing would involve the pipework within the bathroom the resident was not happy for the work to take place.
  12. The resident has requested similar work to be carried out in their home that was recently carried out to a nearby empty property such as enlarging the kitchen to accommodate a radiator, it is not the remit of this Service to tell the landlord how to deliver its services but to ensure it has given proper consideration to the issues raised. While the resident has advised why the offer of the plinth heater and the proposal to install a radiator on the landing is not suitable in terms of their personal circumstances, the landlord offer to install the radiator to the hallway and the plinth heater to the kitchen remains open to the resident and it is a reasonable response to the residents’ concerns.
  13. The landlord agreed to carry out works to mains wire the smoke alarms to the property and it is understood that this work had not been carried out, even though this is a health and safety requirement.
  14. In summary, the resident is unhappy with the size of the kitchen and the adequacy of the heating within the kitchen. There is sufficient evidence that the landlord considered the residents’ concerns by arranging for an OT assessment to take place and agreed to improve the heating by the installation a plinth heater in the kitchen.

Determination (decision)

  1.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlords’ handling of the resident concerns about the kitchen condition including the lack of heating.

Reasons

  1. The landlord agreed to install a plinth heater to remedy the lack of heating, however, following a miscommunication with its contractor a mistake occurred which lead to the incorrect heater being ordered. In addition, there was an unreasonable delay in changing the meter cupboard doors and carrying out the internal repairs to the meter cupboard doors.

 Orders

  1. The landlord to pay compensation of £150 for the service failures in ordering the incorrect heater, the delay in replacing the meter cupboard doors.
  2. The landlord to fill the holes inside the meter cupboard doors as agreed in its works order of 1 December 2020 if it has not already done so.
  3. The landlord should confirm compliance with this order to this Service within six weeks of the date of this report

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to install the mains wired smoke alarms If it has not already done so.
  2. The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.