Places for People Homes Limited (202015387)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015387

Places for People Homes Limited

29 April 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

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around the property’s omission from a historic kitchen replacement programme and its communication in relation to access issues;
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant, and the tenancy began on 4 January 2010. The property is a two-bedroom maisonette in a block. It sits above a studio flat on the ground floor.
The tenancy agreement is a legal document which confirms the respective obligations of both parties. It shows the landlord is obliged to keep the exterior of the property in “good repair”, along with the structure and installations. This includes internal walls, doors and frames, skirting boards, sinks and sanitaryware amongst other items. Floor coverings are not listed as a responsibility of the landlord.
The resident is obliged to allow the landlord access for inspections, repairs and other works during reasonable hours. The landlord will usually give a minimum of 24 hours’ notice, but immediate access may be required during an emergency.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy, effective from 1 January 2021, shows complaints will be acknowledged within five working days at stage one. A response will then be issued within ten working days. At stage two, complaints will be acknowledged within three working days and a response will be issued in 20 working days. The landlord’s related compensation procedure shows it can award £25 in compensation where it has missed a required timescale.
The parties were engaged in a previous access dispute which began around May 2020. The Ombudsman has seen evidence, including a hand delivered letter, that shows the landlord was attempting to address “a very bad leak” from the property, which was impacting the flat below. The information seen suggests the leak was ongoing for several months before it was resolved.
This dispute resulted in the resident making a formal complaint and the evidence suggests the landlord responded at stage one around September 2020. The Ombudsman hasn’t seen either the resident’s original complaint or the landlord’s related stage one response.

Summary of events

On 14 January 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. This was in response to a letter she received on 5 January 2021. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of this letter. Her main complaint points were:

The resident hadn’t prevented the landlord accessing the property. The letter was therefore incorrect, and its tone was unfairly threatening. Further, the landlord’s notice of impending tenancy action was unjustified.
The resident was treated differently to other tenants because her kitchen wasn’t replaced during a previous upgrade programme. The landlord had not responded her requests for information about the programme.
The resident was “scared” about a visit or ‘threats’ from the landlord. She had previously received similar threats based on false information. The landlord would need to provide a proposed time and date to attend the property.

The landlord updated the resident on 21 January 2021. It said the impact of the pandemic was ongoing and it may be unable to comply with its standard response timescales. An apology was offered in advance for any inconvenience.
On 11 February 2021 the landlord issued its stage one response. An apology was offered for a delay in responding. The main points were:
1. A previous complaint response addressed the resident’s concerns around missed appointments and staff conduct. It covered a period between May and September 2020. During this time, the resident twice refused emergency access. The landlord left a calling card on another occasion. The source of a leak was ultimately confirmed during a successful visit to the property in late August 2020.
2. Between 7 October 2020 and 5 January 2021, the resident refused access, rescheduled one appointment and cancelled another. On a separate occasion, there was no answer at the property despite two reminder letters in advance of a visit. The landlord acknowledged the resident was incorrectly told a member of staff was off work around this time. It was sorry for the error but did not have a contact number to call back with the correct information.
3. The landlord’s letter was prompted by its recent concerns around access. Its investigation showed its content was accurate and was not miscommunicated. Access was required for mould treatment and an inspection. The inspection would assess the condition of the kitchen and the property in general. The landlord could apply for an injunction where access was declined or if there was no engagement from a resident.
4. The landlord was unable to confirm why the kitchen hadn’t been replaced and believed it was original. However, residents who failed to provide access for an assessment within a reasonable timescale were left out of the programme. The landlord was not refusing to provide a replacement kitchen, but an assessment needed completing beforehand. An appointment was arranged to attend the property on 17 February 2021 in line with the resident’s request.
The resident replied on 15 February 2021. She disputed missing a visit on
27 November 2020. She said no personal contact, cards, notes or letters were received from the landlord between this date and its letter on 5 January 2021. Further, the letter didn’t accurately reflect the circumstances around access. The main points were:
1. The resident was generally at home due to the pandemic. She accepted rearranging an appointment on 20 October 2020, due to work commitments, but wanted evidence of any communication after 24 November 2020.
2. The landlord had not confirmed when the kitchen was installed though the resident specifically asked for this information. Further, its narrative was concerning as a 2010 inspection deemed the kitchen ‘fit for purpose’. She was told it was not due for replacement until 2025.
3. The resident raised concerns about the condition of the kitchen when she moved in. The landlord “grudgingly” agreed to replace the sink only and bathroom works were declined. This was consistent with the resident’s experience at a previous property.
4. The landlord’s comments about recent and historic access issues were unfair. Its actions, and the conduct of its operatives, showed it was biased towards the resident based on her ethnicity. As a result, she didn’t accept the findings of its investigation and wanted to know the next steps.

The resident’s comments at this point were largely consistent with the content of her initial complaint.

On 16 February 2021 the resident formally escalated her complaint. This was following an exchange of emails about the next steps. The landlord acknowledged the escalation two days later. It said it would respond at stage two by 18 March 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 February 2021. She said an inspection took place that day and the landlord’s operatives were respectful and courteous. Further, this was appreciated in the light of previous negative experiences.
The landlord updated the resident on 2 March 2021. It said, further to the inspection on 17 February 2021, the kitchen was accepted for replacement. However, the landlord needed to access all areas of the property to carry out the recommended works. The main points were:
1. Separate electrical testing was needed throughout the property as the inspection identified wall outlets were painted black and a cooker wire was split. Since the resident was responsible for the cooker, she would need to arrange repair works and confirm a date the landlord could reinspect.
2. Chipboard flooring needed substantial repairs due to damage caused by a “prolonged excess of water”. Wall units were detaching from the kitchen wall due to the quantity of bags and heavy items. The resident needed to replace the kitchen door, which was painted black, and was responsible for installing suitable floor coverings.
3. The landlord was unable to ascertain whether the bedrooms needed repairs. They were not inspected because the resident denied access during the inspection. However, elsewhere excessive items and belongings were reducing movement space and access to essential facilities. This included items on the stairs.
4. The landlord expected the resident to make provisions to facilitate the works. Corridors, doorways and stairs needed clearing and the carpet should be clean. Bathroom fixtures and fittings should be accessible as well as plug sockets. Rubbish should be removed from the property.
5. A combined electrical test and inspection was scheduled for 19 March 2021. The landlord would charge for electrical fixtures painted by the resident. A full kitchen replacement over five days was provisionally scheduled to begin on 29 March 2021. The landlord would inspect the property’s condition on
  23 March 2021. Failure to allow the pre-inspection or unsuitable conditions would result in cancellation of the kitchen works. All areas of the property would be inspected.
The resident responded the same day. She said information from the previous inspection was incorrect because only one socket was painted, the door was not painted and units had not been pulled off the wall. Further, the landlord’s inspector had not clarified their role and their report was negative. She disputed refusing access to any area of the property, along with the presence of either excessive items or rubbish.
The landlord emailed the resident on 4 March 2021. It said it was sorry to hear she was unable to accommodate the arranged electrical and kitchen replacement dates due to work commitments. It asked for alternative dates in April 2021 and restated the required timescales for the works.
Its email acknowledged the kitchen door was not painted black. It said painted tiles and kitchen cupboards did not need stripping since they would be replaced during the works. The resident was advised painted sockets would fail the required electrical test.
It included a picture of a kitchen cabinet detached from the wall at the top. The landlord said it had offered to reattach the unit, given it was dangerous, but the resident refused. Further, it hadn’t said the resident pulled the unit off the wall. Its previous email asked the resident to remove items from inside and on top of the unit for her safety.
It also said the landlord expected to complete a full property inspection. However, the resident refused access to the bedrooms because her daughter was sleeping. Though the landlord’s operatives were at the property for several hours, they were not given an opportunity to complete the inspection. The landlord would therefore inspect these areas during a scheduled visit on 23 March 2021.
Further, now the kitchen inspection was complete, the landlord wanted to carry out the replacement works. However, it needed the resident to help by clearing and organising some of her belongings. The landlord said it was prepared to provide support at the resident’s request and it offered to dispose of a sofa in the property’s kitchen if required.
It said the inspection found laminate flooring in the kitchen was not fitted. This needed to be removed prior to the kitchen works and could not be reinstalled on suitability grounds. While floor coverings were the resident’s responsibility, the landlord could remove the laminate and lay nonslip flooring, once the underlying chipboard was repaired, providing the resident was happy with this approach. The landlord asked for confirmation so it could ensure the items were included in the replacement works.
The resident replied the following day. She said she had not prevented access and her daughter was ill at the time of the inspection. Further, the operative attended for around 30 minutes and advised they only needed to see the kitchen and bathroom. As a result, the landlord’s information was again incorrect. She was unhappy pictures were taken because she was not informed of their purpose. She was also unhappy the landlord hadn’t provided the specific year the kitchen was installed.
She said the landlord made ‘false allegations; threatened inspections; recorded visits which did not take place; took pictures without her knowledge or consent; denied repairs it was contractually obliged to undertake and blamed her for its failure to replace the kitchen’. As a result, she felt “very vulnerable” and couldn’t trust the landlord’s proposals.
On 11 March 2021 the landlord responded to a number of the resident’s concerns by email. An availability form was attached for the resident to complete with her preferred dates for the works. The landlord said it needed to attend the property prior to starting the kitchen works. The main points were:
1. The resident had not responded to the landlord’s queries around flooring and the sofa in the kitchen. These queries were included in the attached form to record the resident’s response.
2. The landlord believed the kitchen was original based on its records. The block was built around 1982. The kitchen was previously marked for replacement and the landlord had agreed to the works. The property’s bathroom was inspected and did not require renewal at this time.
3. Photographs were taken to record the condition of a property and could include elements in need of repair, tenant damage or safety hazards. The landlord’s next inspection would check the resident had taken sufficient action to allow the works to begin.
4. The landlord was entitled to give notice and conduct inspections. Its previous correspondence advised it wished to inspect the property. While there may have been some miscommunication regarding the need to inspect all areas, the bedrooms could be inspected during the next visit since the resident was not refusing access.
5. The landlord was sorry the resident felt she couldn’t trust its proposals and understood inspections may feel intrusive. Its aim was to ensure the property was safe, in good condition and that any required repairs were completed.
6. The landlord could put the resident in touch with an “independent befriending service” at her request. The service could act in an advocacy capacity and offer support on a range of topics including tenancy issues.
On 18 March 2021 the landlord advised the resident her stage two review was delayed by staff sickness. It apologised for the delay and said it would respond to her concerns by 26 March 2021.
The landlord updated the resident again on 19 March 2021. It said she had not responded or returned the availability form. Further, an electrical operative had attended the same day, in case she was able to provide access, but there was no answer. A new date was arranged for the electrician and an amended availability form was attached. The landlord said if it was unable to check the property’s condition or complete the electrical appointment then the kitchen replacement would be cancelled and arranged for a later date.
On 22 March 2021 the resident responded with a list of 27 concerns. The main points were:
1. The resident did not want, or need, details of the advocacy service and her vulnerability was a direct result of the landlord’s actions. Its offer of a referral was therefore insulting and made on an incorrect basis.
2. One of the landlord’s operatives was a racist. He saw the condition of the kitchen and bathroom when the resident moved in and led her to believe the kitchen would be replaced.
3. Inspections had been allocated to three different operatives to date. The landlord’s operatives had “lied” to the resident on three separate occasions. The resident did not understand the need for further inspections.
4. The landlord took pictures without the resident’s consent and compromised her family’s safety. Its operative was supposed to be working in the kitchen and bathroom but took pictures in other areas. They declined the resident’s offer to inspect other areas.
5. The inspector saw the condition of the bathroom tap and that enamel had come away in the bath. The resident believed the bathroom was also original and didn’t understand how it could be deemed to be in acceptable condition.
6. The resident did not consent to an inspection on 23 March 2021. She proposed the kitchen replacement works began on 6 April 2021 due to work commitments. This was on the basis she was unable to take five days off work in one week. Her proposed start date would allow her to spread the fifth day over a second week if needed.
7. The resident wanted confirmation that the works would be completed in five days. She said she was happy to facilitate a further inspection to assess the completed works if required. The resident wanted her concerns treated as a formal complaint.
On 26 March the landlord advised the resident the replacement works could not take place without a pre-inspection. It said it was sorry it was unable to speak to the resident but noted her preference for email contact. The resident was asked to provide a date the landlord could visit the following week.
The resident replied the same day and confirmed she did not object to an inspection of the kitchen only. She asked the landlord to confirm her proposed alternative dates for the works. The resident did not propose an alternative date for the pre-inspection.
On 30 March 2021 the landlord again asked the resident to confirm her availability for a pre-inspection. It said, without an initial inspection, works commencing 6 April 2021 would be cancelled. After an exchange of emails the following day, it was eventually agreed that the pre-inspection would take place on 1 April 2021.
On 6 April 2021 the resident notified the landlord the kitchen contractor was “very aggressive and with a hostile tone and extremely sarcastic”. She said this was prompted by her enquiry about their lack of full PPE. She said the contractor left after she declined to provide a phone number for their supervisor.
The resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint on 7 April 2021. She said two deadlines had passed with no further update.
On 9 April 2021 the landlord issued its stage two response. It did not acknowledge a further delay or the resident’s recent chaser. It reviewed two separate stage one complaints. The wording suggests they were from
9 September 2020 and 8 February 2021. The Ombudsman has not seen the first of these responses. The main points were:
1. There was no evidence to show the resident was lied to or deliberately misled. The landlord’s letter of 5 January 2021 was appropriate given the difficulty it faced accessing the property. Its subsequent complaint response offered a detailed timeline of events.
2. Though it was unable to clarify why the property was not included in the kitchen replacement programme, the landlord had never refused a replacement. Its record keeping around programmed works had since improved to avoid any doubt. It was pleased the required inspections were now completed and the works were underway.
3. The resident was given details for an independent advisory service because she said she felt vulnerable and distrustful of the landlord. The landlord was sorry for any distress caused but its intention was to help. No details were disclosed to the service and its relevant staff had acted appropriately.
4. The resident’s allegation of racism was extremely serious and had been investigated carefully. The landlord was sorry the resident felt this way based on its actions.
5. The landlord’s investigation showed it attempted to minimise the number of inspections. For example, by combining mould treatment works with an inspection. The purpose of visits was explained in advance and any inspection would involve photographing areas of concern.
6. Overall, the resident’s complaints were correctly handled. The landlord was sorry it could not confirm why the property’s kitchen hadn’t been replaced during the programme. It therefore awarded £25 compensation for a missed timescale in line with its complaints policy.
7. The resident’s concerns about the duration of the works and the conduct of contractors were outside the scope of the landlord’s review. These matters could be raised as a separate formal complaint if the resident wished to pursue them.
On 13 April 2021 the resident raised concerns around the duration of the works. This was on the basis they had taken six days and she needed to know how much longer was needed. She also said operatives attending on 10 April 2021 broke her step ladder. The wording of the landlord’s previous response suggests it was aware of further issues were arising at the point its stage two response was issued.

Assessment and findings

The resident has said she experienced racial discrimination from the landlord. It is recognised this is a serious allegation which was likely prompted by a significant level of distress her part. It may help to explain the Ombudsman cannot make findings under the Equalities Act (2010) or otherwise. The allegation is therefore a legal matter that likely needs considering by a court. The resident could contact Citizen’s Advice if she needs assistance pursing legal action.
However, the Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s allegation. On that basis, this assessment considered the evidence carefully with the resident’s allegation in mind. The information seen shows the landlord engaged with the allegation, gave it reasonable consideration and responded accordingly, at a leadership level, during the second stage of its complaints process. This was appropriate action from the landlord given the nature of the allegation.
The scope of Ombudsman investigations can be time limited by the availability of evidence. In this case, there is no information to show why the property was not included in the historic kitchen replacement programme. The wording of the resident’s correspondence suggests pre-inspections for the programme took place in 2010. It would also be unreasonable to expect the landlord to provide information relating to events which occurred so long ago. It is noted the landlord said its record keeping improved in the period following the kitchen replacement programme.
While there is no evidence to show either party was responsible for the property’s exclusion from the programme, the omission suggests the landlord missed a timescale of some variety. Given the age and condition of the kitchen, it was appropriate for the landlord to replace it after the resident highlighted the matter. The timeline confirms the replacement was approved, following an inspection, around seven weeks after the issue was brought to the landlord’s attention.
It also shows the replacement works were underway around six weeks later after both parties made relevant arrangements. This represents appropriate action by the landlord within a reasonable timescale given the circumstances. It was also reasonable for the landlord to award the resident £25 in compensation, in line with its relevant policy, for the possible missed timescale. When the resident raised new concerns during the kitchen replacement works, the landlord correctly advised her to raise a new complaint so they could be fully investigated.
The tenancy agreement shows the resident is obliged to allow the landlord access for inspections and repairs. The landlord is entitled to initiate tenancy action if it thinks agreement has been breached. No information was seen to show any of the landlord’s proposed inspections were unwarranted or excessive. The timeline shows the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns around access by explaining its actions, working to minimise the number of inspections, offering additional support and by offering to refer the resident to an independent source of assistance.
For example, the landlord’s correspondence on 2 and 11 March 2021 offered a detailed explanation of the landlord’s proposed next steps along with its underlying rationale. Mould treatment works were combined with an inspection and the landlord later sought to combine electrical works with a further inspection. The landlord offered to provide kitchen flooring, which it is not responsible for, and to remove a sofa to help the resident. It responded appropriately to the resident’s reports that she was vulnerable, in relation to the landlord, by signposting her to an independent organisation capable of offering support.
The timeline shows there were instances when the landlord’s communications were factually incorrect. For example, when the resident was told a member of staff was on leave or when it said she needed to replace a painted kitchen door. On both occasions, the landlord acknowledged its errors in its subsequent communications. Further, the incidents had limited impact on the resident and did not form part of her core complaint. The evidence suggests their impact was limited because the resident was sent two reminder letters, containing the scheduled appointment date, prior to her phone call. The landlord ultimately replaced the kitchen door at its own expense.
There was no evidence to show the landlord’s actions, in response to the resident’s concerns around the replacement kitchen and access issues, were either inappropriate or unreasonable. It correctly approved a replacement kitchen and offered £25 in compensation to recognise a possible historic error. The compensation was awarded in line with the landlord’s compensation procedure. Overall, this represents reasonable redress on the landlord’s part.
In relation to the landlord’s complaint handling, the timeline confirms there were delays at both stages of its complaints process. However, at stage one, the resident was advised to expect a delay at an early stage. She later received a formal apology in the landlord’s response for any inconvenience caused. This was appropriate action from the landlord given the circumstances.
The landlord missed two deadlines at stage two and the resident eventually chased it for a response. It is reasonable to conclude this was inconvenient. The timeline confirms the resident experienced an unexpected delay of around ten working days before the landlord issued its final response. This is based on the period between 26 March 2021 and 9 April 2021. Though the landlord offered an informal apology for missing its initial stage two deadline on 18 March 2021, it didn’t recognise the additional unexpected delay or take any steps to redress it.
The landlord should have apologised formally for any handling delays in its stage two response. At this point, it should have considered the overall duration of any delays along with the most appropriate form of redress. Given the above, the evidence confirms there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns around the property’s omission from a historic kitchen replacement programme and its notice of tenancy action in relation to access issues.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord approved a replacement kitchen and awarded compensation, in line with its relevant procedure, to address a possible historic error. It responded to the resident’s access concerns by explaining its actions, working to minimise the number of inspections, offering additional support and by offering to refer the resident to an independent source of assistance.
The landlord failed to identify or redress a complaint handling delay of around ten working days between 26 March and 9 April 2021. The resident wasn’t expecting this delay and eventually had to chase the landlord for a response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to check its records and confirm, to the Ombudsman and the resident, within four weeks whether the property was ever similarly omitted from a bathroom replacement programme. If it was, the landlord should reinspect the bathroom with a view to replicating its approach to the resident’s concerns about the kitchen.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident an additional £50 (separate from the £25 previously awarded at stage two) in compensation within four weeks to address any distress or inconvenience caused by the above identified failure in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord, if it hasn’t already, to pay its previous award of £25 in compensation, which was awarded at stage 2 on 9 April 2021.
The landlord to ensure it routinely checks for any complaint handling delays prior to issuing a stage two response. Identified delays should be addressed in its responses and redressed accordingly.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions with respect to the recommendation within four weeks.