Midland Heart Limited (202110765)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110765

Midland Heart Limited

31 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of kitchen repairs.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a four-bedroom property. In February 2016, the landlord upgraded the kitchen at the property.
In 2020, the resident complained about some outstanding repairs not being done after the kitchen had been installed. She said cupboard doors were falling off, there were doors not aligned and a worktop was damaged. The landlord noted the resident had chased the repairs on two occasions in 2016, once in 2017, and three times in 2019. The landlord inspected the damage and accepted there were some repairs needed to the kitchen doors and flooring. It said it was willing to do these repairs; however, it said the worktop was only damaged because a saucepan had been placed on it. The landlord did not think it should put right this damage, and so refused to replace the worktop. In its stage one complaint response (16 December 2020), the landlord offered the resident £70 compensation for the delay with the repairs.
The resident said she accepted there was wear and tear to the worktop when it was inspected by the landlord in 2020, but said that was not the case in 2016. She maintained that the landlord had agreed to replace the worktop in 2016. She asked to escalate her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process.
The landlord and the resident had further discussions about the matter, and the resident said she would purchase a worktop and would accept the landlord fitting this in lieu of the compensation offered for the delays. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 29 January 2021. It agreed that the resident would source the worktop herself, and the landlord would replace this for her in lieu of the £70 compensation offered in its stage one response.
In March 2021, the landlord noted in its internal emails that the resident was to contact it once she had sourced the worktop, but it had not heard from her. It noted that the resident would not allow it to carry out the other repairs until the issue with the worktop was concluded. After the resident brought her complaint to this Service, matters progressed. In January 2022, the landlord carried out a further inspection and found damage to the worktop, a door unit, a drawer, and the flooring. The landlord thought the cost of the repairs would be similar to the cost of replacing the whole kitchen. The landlord therefore agreed to replace the kitchen. This was done in April 2022.
In May 2022, the landlord noted there were some outstanding ‘snagging’ issues with the kitchen, which it thought were being dealt with by its contractor. It apologised to the resident for the inconvenience she had been caused and offered her total compensation of £724. It said this was made up of £554 compensation for service failure, and £170 compensation for inconvenience in line with its compensation matrix. The resident still wanted this Service to look into the matter, in order to establish whether the landlord’s compensation offer was reasonable. She also said the snagging issues had not been completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman is unable to investigate the landlord’s actions at the time that the original kitchen upgrade works took place as these events took place a considerable time prior to the resident’s complaint and are therefore not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Instead, this investigation is focussed on issues raised and responded to within the complaint submitted by the resident in December 2020, which culminated in the landlord’s January 2021 final response. In consideration of this complaint, the Ombudsman will consider whether the landlord has acted fairly and reasonably in all the circumstances of the case. Any reference to the original kitchen upgrade works is included here for contextual purposes only.
In the interests of achieving a resolution to this case, this investigation has considered some events that occurred following the completion of the complaint under investigation. Specifically, the landlord’s actions to complete the unresolved kitchen repair works that it had acknowledged remained outstanding at the time of the complaint. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution process as this Service expects landlords to follow through on agreements made during its complaints process.

Kitchen Repairs

Under its repairs policy, the landlord commits to processing repairs accurately and promptly through all stages, as well as resolve repair service failures as promptly as possible. This is in accordance with the landlord’s obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
When the landlord arranged an inspection in October 2020, it was thought that the damage to the worktop had been caused by a saucepan. Although the resident accepts there was wear and tear to the worktop at that time, she says that was not the case when the kitchen was fitted. But it is not clear what other damage there was to the worktop. The landlord does not have a record of the resident reporting a defect with the worktop when the kitchen was installed in 2016. When the landlord carried out a further inspection in January 2022, the reported damage to the worktop was ‘bubbling’.
As no other damage to the worktop was found, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of the surveyor and conclude that it was not responsible for the repair needed to the worktop. This was in line with the tenancy agreement which says that the landlord is not responsible for any repair if it is needed because of any neglect or damage caused by the resident.
As the resident alleged that the landlord had previously agreed to replace the worktop, it was also appropriate for the landlord to investigate this. The recollections of the contract manager from 2016 was that the worktop replacement had not been authorised. Without any evidence to the contrary to indicate that the landlord had previously agreed to replace the worktop, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on this.
In the landlord’s complaint response, it accepted that the resident had chased the outstanding kitchen repairs on several occasions over the previous four years. It is not known why the repairs were not completed, though there has been some suggestion that this might have happened because of a change in the contractor used by the landlord. Nonetheless, it is clear that the landlord did not act in accordance with its repairs policy, as it did not deal with the reported repairs promptly.
The landlord offered the resident £70 compensation for the delays (or, as an alternative to this, the fitting of a worktop she had purchased this herself). This amount of compensation was not reasonable or proportionate given the length of time the resident had been waiting for the repairs.
Although the parties had agreed between them that the resident would source her own worktop and the landlord fit this, the resident did not then contact the landlord about this. Whilst it is recognised that the landlord had noted the resident did not want the other repairs to take place until the issue with the worktop had been resolved, the landlord did not follow up the outstanding repairs with the resident and instead closed the repair job. Given how long the matter had been ongoing, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to be more proactive in terms of arranging the repairs.
When the landlord carried out a further inspection in January 2022, it found that the repairs needed to the kitchen would be of a similar cost as replacing the whole kitchen. The landlord therefore decided to replace the kitchen. That was not unreasonable, and so the resident’s concerns about the repairs and the worktop have now been addressed as it has been confirmed that the full kitchen replacement has taken place (apart from some snagging issues).
Although the landlord was willing to carry out the majority of the repairs after the resident raised her complaint in 2020, the resident had to put up with the defects in her kitchen for four years prior to that. Whilst the defects reported were of a seemingly minor nature, it is accepted that they would have caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience. The resident also had the added frustration of trying to have the defects resolved with the landlord over such a long period.
Following the end of its complaints process, the landlord recognised that there had been service failure in respect of the repairs, and also accepted that the resident was caused a great deal of inconvenience as a result of the matter. It increased the compensation offered to the resident to a total amount of £724 to recognise this.
It is not clear how the landlord arrived at this figure. The landlord stated it was awarding £554 for service failure and £170 for inconvenience, and that this was in line with its compensation matrix. But it failed to include the compensation matrix with its offer to the resident. The landlord also did not provide this Service with a copy of its compensation matrix, and it is not available on its website.
The Ombudsman has therefore considered the matter based on the Housing Ombudsman guidance on remedies. This says that awards of £250 to £700 might be appropriate where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the resident. An example includes failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy, such as to address repairs. It is considered that the landlord’s service failure in respect of the kitchen repairs would fall into this category.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted the complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress.
As the landlord’s offer of compensation is higher than the maximum amount suggested in this Service’s guidance on remedies for a situation such as this, no further action is required. In all the circumstances of the case, the landlord is considered to have identified a suitable remedy for the overall failures identified.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint concerning the landlord’s handling of repairs needed to the resident’s kitchen.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, the landlord to pay the resident £724 compensation already offered within four weeks, as the finding of reasonable redress has been made on that basis.
The landlord to establish with the resident that the snagging issues with the kitchen have all now been resolved, and if not, to arrange for these to be completed.
The landlord to consider including its compensation matrix within its complaints policy.