Habinteg Housing Association Limited (202201806)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201806

Habinteg Housing Association Limited

18 October 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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the replacement of the resident’s kitchen.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. The landlord has explained to this Service that, after experiencing a number of repair issues with his kitchen, the resident requested a kitchen renewal in February 2020. It has stated that, in October 2020, it committed to renewing the resident’s kitchen in the financial year of 2020/2021 as part of its planned works.
4. In October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to request an update on the renewal. In contrast to its earlier promise to replace the resident’s kitchen, the landlord now stated that it did not have a record of the renewal. It informed the resident that it needed to re-investigate the kitchen, to ascertain if the works were required. The resident asked to raise a stage one formal complaint on 12 October 2021. He complained that his kitchen was dangerous in its current state, and was unhappy that the landlord wanted to reinvestigate works that had been agreed upon the previous year. He requested compensation for the stress and inconvenience of living in a “dangerous kitchen”.
5. The landlord responded on 22 October 2021, acknowledging that it had failed to follow up on its commitment to renew the resident’s kitchen. It explained that the Covid-19 pandemic had impacted its kitchen installation progress, but that it recognised it had failed to advise the resident of these issues. The landlord apologised for its poor communication and raised an order to replace the kitchen. It expected to replace the kitchen within 90 days, however, it did state that this timescale may be exceeded due to supply issues across the industry. It assured the resident that he would be updated if there were any significant delays. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request for compensation.
6. On 18 January 2022, the resident requested to escalate his complaint, which the landlord once again logged at stage one. The resident complained that he had not been kept updated on the delays to his kitchen renewal. He was also dissatisfied that his kitchen would not be replaced within the 90-day period. In its response on 28 January 2022, the landlord explained that although the target timescale for the renewal was 90 days, it had already specified to the resident that this may be exceeded. It acknowledged that it had not kept the resident adequately updated, however, it stated that, as it had previously apologised for this, it would not be upholding his complaint.
7. The resident requested to escalate his complaint again on 3 February 2022, as he felt that the landlord had not followed its complaint procedure correctly. He also cited the additional delays to his kitchen replacement and a lack of communication.
8. The landlord initially denied his request, stating there were insufficient grounds on which to base an escalation to stage two. Conversely, it then escalated his complaint to a stage two panel hearing. The panel hearing in March 2022 concluded that the kitchen works were not completed on time, due to its contractors being heavily affected by the knock-on effects of Covid-19. It recognised that it should have been more proactive in notifying the resident of delays. It also acknowledged that its actions were conflicted in response to his escalation requests. However, it did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
9. In his complaint to this Service, the resident has stated that he is dissatisfied with the length of time it took the landlord to replace his kitchen. He would like compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused by the delays. He would also like the landlord to improve on its communication with its residents.

Assessment

The landlord’s handling of the replacement of the resident’s kitchen

10. The landlord has stated that it agreed to renew the resident’s kitchen in October 2020. From the repair records provided, it is apparent that it told the resident on 28 September 2020 that the works would be “added to the ad hoc programme towards the end of the financial year March 2021” Once the landlord had agreed to renew the kitchen, basic customer service dictates that it should have kept the resident informed of any changes or major developments to his works. It is evident from its communication with the resident in October 2021 that an error had occurred, and the landlord was no longer aware of the works. It was a failing for the landlord to have misplaced the renewal order, and for it to have lost any surveyor reports on the issue.
11. In its response to the resident’s initial complaint, the landlord acted appropriately in that it acknowledged that there had been a delay to the works and apologised for its poor communication. It raised a new work order for the renewal, and made an undertaking to complete the replacement within 90 days, which was in-line with its repairs policy on planned works. However, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), the landlord should have at least considered the resident’s request for compensation, as this was included in his complaint. It would have been appropriate to offer compensation in the circumstances, as the landlord had suggested to the resident in September 2020 that his works would be completed by March 2021. While re-raising the work order was appropriate, the length of time the resident had been left waiting was increased due to the landlord’s error. Without updates to manage his expectations, simply completing the works was not sufficient to fully redress this failing.
12. The resident stated in his first escalation that he was dissatisfied that the subsequent works to his kitchen were not completed within the promised 90-day timescale. However, the landlord had explained in its stage one response that this timescale was subject to change, as there were aspects of the kitchen renewal that were outside of its control. The delay in the kitchen being renewed a second time (completed 23 February 2022), was therefore not a failing, as the resident had been made aware that the 90-day timescale was not definite.
13. Although major works can sometimes be delayed due to reasons outside of the landlord’s control (such as backlogs due to Covid-19, supply issues, or staffing shortages), once again, good customer service would dictate that the landlord should have kept the resident informed of any delays. Additionally, the landlord had promised to keep the resident updated in its first stage response. The landlord’s lack of communication in updating the resident was a failing. The landlord acknowledged that it had not provided adequate updates to the resident in its complaint response, stating that it had noted this as a learning opportunity. Despite finding failings in its communication, the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint in this regard. This undermined its acknowledgement of its mistakes, meaning that this error was not adequately addressed in its complaint response, leaving the complaint unremedied. It would also have added some substance to the landlord’s assurance that it had learnt from its mistake if it had explained what it intended to do differently in the future.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

14. The Code states that where a complaint is made to the landlord, it should be acknowledged and logged at stage one of the complaints procedure. Generally, a third stage should be avoided, unless deemed absolutely necessary by the landlord. Additionally, the landlord’s complaint policy also states that a resident has “the right to have their issue considered as a formal complaint at stage 1 [rather than stage zero] if they wish”.
15. In this case, the landlord’s complaint’s policy does have a stage zero. However, in the resident’s complaint on 12 October 2021, he stated that he wanted his complaint to be considered as a stage one formal complaint. Therefore, in line with its policy, it should have responded to it as such. In his escalation on 18 January 2022, the landlord again responded as if it was a stage one complaint, despite having already issued a response at stage one in October 2021. This was confusing, and, again, was not in line with the landlord’s own policy guidelines. The landlord should have been aware of which stage the resident had reached in its own complaint process.
16. In both the stage one response on 28 January 2022, and the stage two response on 3 March 2022, the landlord identified failings in its service. It initially acknowledged that it had failed to keep the resident updated on delays to his kitchen renewal. Subsequently, it later acknowledged that it had given conflicting advice in response to the resident’s request to escalate from stage one to stage two. Despite identifying these failings, the landlord did not utilise the complaints procedure effectively, as it did not uphold the resident’s complaint in response to those failings. It did not offer any redress to put things right for the resident, such as compensation, or an explanation on how it would learn from its mistakes. Overall, the landlord’s complaints handling was poor, and did not follow its policies, or the Code’s requirements for putting things right when something has gone wrong.

Determination (decision)

17. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in:
    1. The way it handled the replacement to the resident’s kitchen.
    2. Its complaint handling.

Orders

18. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £175 compensation, in acknowledgment of the stress and inconvenience caused to him by the initial delays to his kitchen renewal.
    2. Pay the resident £75 compensation, in acknowledgment of its poor complaint handling.