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

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (202017502)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017502

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

4 March 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 landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s request for it to alter her kitchen units.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She occupies a property which was adapted for a wheelchair user prior to her moving in. Photographs provided show that the kitchen of the property has open spaces under the sink and electric hob which is built into the kitchen worktop.
  2. The resident requested in April 2017 for the landlord to carry out work to block off the open spaces under her kitchen sink and hob as she was concerned about her child, who has vulnerabilities, harming themselves on the wires and pipes. There was no record of the resident pursuing this after October 2017 until she raised the matter again in July 2020.
  3. The Ombudsman would expect that a resident raises their dissatisfaction with a landlord’s actions or lack of action within a reasonable period; this would normally be within six months of the matters arising. This is because, with the passage of time, it is not possible to make a reliable determination on historical events. This investigation will therefore consider events from July 2020, this being when the resident raised the issue of her kitchen again with the landlord.
  4. On 1 July 2020, in response to a repair request from the resident, the landlord requested photographs of the issues, as it was not carrying out inspection in person as a precaution due to the corona virus pandemic. Due to a lack of response from the landlord she raised a complaint, which it responded to on 3 August 2020. In this, the landlord advised that it had not responded due to not receiving the requested photographs from the resident. She submitted these photographs to it on 3 October 2020. There is no evidence of any response from the landlord to these photographs.
  5. The resident chased the matter with the landlord on 4 February 2021, and again on 8 March 2021 when she said that after raising the matter as a health and safety issue for four years, her only option was to carry out the work herself and charge the landlord for it.
  6. The landlord logged the resident’s last contact as a complaint and issued a stage one complaint response to her on 23 March 2021. In this, it upheld her complaint about the safety concerns she had with her kitchen units and proposed to inspect her property and carry out any follow on works as necessary.
  7. At the inspection on 24 March 2021, the landlord found that no repairs were needed. It advised the resident that the kitchen was adapted for a wheelchair user and she would need to submit an alteration request if she wished to alter the kitchen units. The landlord subsequently agreed with her on 22 April 2021 to box in the pipework. When it attended on 29 April 2021, however, the resident refused this work
  8. On 27 April 2021, after receiving contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord to request that it address her continued dissatisfaction through its complaints process. It was relayed that she was considered the space underneath her cooker range in her adapted property to be a health and safety concern and wanted the landlord to fill the gap or reconfigure the layout of the kitchen to prevent her children accessing the space under the electric hob.
  9. The Ombudsman intervened again on 6 September 2021 to request the landlord respond to the resident’s complaint at the final stage of its procedure. The landlord acknowledged the complaint later that day.
  10. The landlord discussed the complaint with the resident on 11 September 2021, when she agreed for it to carry out boxing in of the wires and pipes in the gaps in the kitchen. It attended the property on 14 September 2021 and she refused the work. The resident wanted the landlord to remove the replace the units in the kitchen. The landlord subsequently agreed to supply and fit a modified base unit which would fit into the gap underneath the sink without altering the existing installed units.
  11. On 30 September 2021, the landlord issued its final response to the resident’s complaint. In this, it acknowledged that she was dissatisfied with pipes and wires being uncovered in the gap under the sink. The landlord confirmed that it had inspected the resident’s property and found that, as the kitchen was purpose built for a wheelchair, no repairs were required. It asserted that the kitchen was fitted prior to the start of the tenancy and she accepted the property in its current condition when she took on the tenancy.
  12. The landlord noted that the resident had refused its offer to box in the pipes and wires and confirmed that it had arranged an appointment for 8 October 2021 for it to fit a base unit into the space under the sink. It would carry out a post-inspection by 12 November 2021. The landlord partially upheld the complaint as it considered that there had been a delay in it reaching a decision on the resident’s complaint. It offered her £50 compensation for her time and trouble.
  13. The landlord carried out a post-inspection of the kitchen unit on 10 November 2021 when the resident confirmed that she was satisfied with the work.
  14. The resident informed this Service on 15 November 2021 that she continued to be dissatisfied because the landlord had not blocked in the space under the electric hob. She said that she had since bought a cooker to fit into this space and wanted it to reimburse her for this due to the delay in blocking off this space. To resolve her complaint the resident wanted compensation of £500 in addition to the cost the oven she purchased.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of any installations it provides for space and water heating, sanitation and the supply of water, gas and electricity. This also confirms that it will keep in good repair and proper working order any fittings it provides.
  2. The landlord’s repairs handbook states that it is responsible for kitchen units and only domestic appliances it provides, unless these have been “gifted” to the resident.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure where at stage one, it is to acknowledge the complaint within five working days and issue a response within ten working days of its acknowledgement. At the final stage of the procedure, it is to provide a full response to the resident within 20 working days of the escalation of the complaint. The landlord may agree an extension with the resident of ten days at stage one and 30 days at the final stage of its internal process.
  4. The landlord’s compensation guidance provides for payments of £51 to £150 to be made in cases where a service failure has occurred which results in “a longer period of delay” and where the resident “has had to chase several times”.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to alter her kitchen units

  1. As confirmed by the landlord’s tenancy agreement and repairs handbook above, it had an obligation to repair and maintain the kitchen units in the property which it provided to the resident. This means that it was to repair any defects which present themselves in the kitchen units. If the kitchen units did not exhibit any defects, i.e. damage or wear or tear, then any work to change the units would be considered an alteration or improvement to the kitchen units. The landlord had no obligation to carry out improvements to the property.
  2. It is important to note that the kitchen, which was adapted for a wheelchair user, was installed prior to the resident commencing her tenancy. It is the responsibility of any prospective tenant to satisfy themselves that the property meets their needs prior to entering into a tenancy agreement with a landlord. Any subsequent dissatisfaction with the layout of the kitchen, provided it was kept in good repair by the landlord, would be the responsibility of the resident to manage.
  3. The landlord inspected the property on 24 March 2021 and found that the kitchen units were not in need of repair. There was no evidence that the resident reported any defect or damage to the kitchen units. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to state that there was no need for any work to the units. While, the landlord had no obligation to improve the property, it had a duty to manage potential hazards in the property. In light of the resident’s concern that the pipes and wires in the gaps under the sink and hob presented a hazard to her children, it was reasonable of the landlord to propose, on 22 April and 10 September 2021, to box these in to mitigate the potential hazard.
  4. The resident refused this boxing in work on two occasions, on 29 April and 29 September 2021 However, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this to resolve the potential hazard. In the course of the resident’s final stage complaint, it agreed to fit a bespoke unit to fill the gap under the sink. This was a reasonable response from the landlord to address the resident’s concerns, particularly as it was not strictly obliged to do this as this was an alteration or improvement to the kitchen.
  5. The resident since said that she was dissatisfied with the landlord not filling the gap underneath the electric hob, which she did herself by purchasing an oven. As mentioned above, the landlord had no obligation to fill this gap, and the subsequent purchase of an oven was the resident’s own decision. The resident has also had the benefit of being able to use the oven. Therefore, the landlord had no obligation to pay for the cost of the oven.
  6. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for her time and trouble in pursuing the matter of the kitchen units. There was an unexplained delay between her submitting photographs of the matter to the landlord on 3 October 2020, and it subsequently agreeing to inspect the issue on 24 March 2021.
  7. This offer was in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view at on our website, which provides for awards of £50 to £250 compensation for failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact on the overall outcome of the complaint. Examples include repeated failures to reply to letters or return phone calls and failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact. As the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s request in accordance with its obligations, the offer of £50 was reasonable redress for the inconvenience she experienced in pursuing the matter up until that point.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord did not acknowledge in its final stage complaint response that the resident had raised concerns, though this Service, about the gap underneath her hob on 27 April 2021. On this occasion, the Ombudsman requested that the landlord respond to her continued dissatisfaction through its complaints procedure. There was evidence that the landlord did so, however further intervention was required by the Ombudsman on 6 September 2021 before the landlord provided its final complaint response to the resident on 30 September 2021.
  2. There was an unexplained delay between 27 April and 6 September 2021 when the landlord acknowledged the complaint at the final stage of its procedure. Furthermore, its final response made no mention of the gap underneath the resident’s hob, only underneath her sink. To date, there is no evidence that the landlord confirmed its final stance on blocking the gap underneath the hob.
  3. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance above, a further £150 compensation should be paid to the resident for the delay in addressing the complaint and its omission of a confirmation on its stance on the gap underneath the hob.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to our investigation which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolves the complaint satisfactorily concerning its response to the resident’s request to alter her kitchen units.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord carried out works to the kitchen in excess of its obligations. It acknowledged its delay in its response to the resident’s concerns and made a reasonable offer of compensation.
  2. The landlord did not respond fully to the resident’s complaint and did not acknowledge the resident’s continued dissatisfaction until further intervention from the Ombudsman. The landlord should offer compensation as detailed below in view of this.

Order

  1. Within 28 days, the landlord should pay the resident an additional amount of £150 compensation for its failures in the handling of her complaint.
  2. The landlord should also pay the £50 compensation it previously offered the resident in its final stage complaint response, unless this has already been paid.