Newlon Housing Trust (202012890)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012890

Newlon Housing Trust

30 June 2021

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 response to residents’ reports about:
1. Repairs to the kitchen at the property including cupboards, mixer tap and linoleum flooring.
2. Repairs to the electric cooker.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a three-bedroom house. The resident is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. The policy requires that complainants are kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should formally respond within 10 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a formal panel review of the decision and a response should be provided within 30 working days.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to carry out 95% of non-emergency repairs within 20 days. Emergency repairs will be carried out within 24 hours.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that ‘when the [landlord] has failed to provide a high quality of service in some way (e.g., failure to reply to letters, losing important documents, repeated broken appointments), a payment of £25 could be made in recognition of inconvenience caused.’
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord agrees to keep in good repair the ‘internal walls, floors and ceilings, doors and door frames, door hinges and skirting boards but not including internal painting and decoration’.
The tenant agrees to install and maintain to all floors in the property which are situated above another flat, an appropriate floor covering, such as carpet and underlay in sitting rooms, bedrooms, hallways and on stairs, and linoleum in kitchens, bathrooms and WCs, unless the landlord provides the tenant with written consent to do otherwise.
The tenant is responsible for minor “running repairs” for example to replace where necessary: fuses, window panes, plugs for sinks and baths, WC seats. Full details of Tenants’ responsibilities for repairs are available from the Trust on request.

Summary of events

In June 2019, contractors on behalf of the landlord fitted new kitchen units at the resident’s property. This included the reinstallation of her cooker.
On 6 April 2020, the resident reported gaps in her newly fitted kitchen unit and an issue with a mixing tap.
On 9 June 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and was informed that all jobs were on hold due to the Covid-19 pandemic and would be updated when it knew more.
On 10 June 2020, the contractors who installed the kitchen unit in 2019 attended the property unannounced and fixed the broken kitchen units.
On 28 June 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that one of the kitchen units had collapsed again and would need to be replaced.
On 19 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for an update in regard to the kitchen works.
On 27 August 2020, the landlord and the contractor inspected the property and it was advised that repairs needed to be performed to one of the kitchen units, the mixer tap and a portion of linoleum flooring replaced.
On 10 September 2020, the resident requested for an update from the inspection on 27 August 2020 and asked what repairs would be performed.
On 14 September 2020, the landlord informed the resident that its contractor had ordered a replacement kitchen unit and it would arrive within two to three weeks. The landlord would contact the resident in relation to its installation.
On 14 September 2020, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the poor workmanship of the contractor who installed the kitchen in 2019. She highlighted the following issues:
1. That the kitchen unit had collapsed in on itself leaving no storage space for her food.
2. There are outstanding repairs to the mixing tap and a burn in the linoleum flooring.
3. That the landlord and the contractor inspected the property on 27 August 2020 and she was yet to hear back regarding the outcome or repairs.
On 8 October 2020, the landlord provided a stage one complaint response and addressed the following issues:
1. It acknowledged and apologised that there had been a level of service failure on its behalf and that the resident had to follow up a number of repairs since April 2020.
2. It advised that works to the resident’s kitchen cabinets had been delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic and a delay in the contractor receiving the materials.
3. It advised that the matter of the mixing tap had been treated as a defect and its contractor would repair the issue. The landlord would update the resident when it had more information.
4. It advised the resident that it would like to wait until all repairs were complete before awarding formal compensation to ensure that the length of time was taken into consideration.
On 21 October 2020, the contractor advised the landlord that the kitchen cabinet and flooring would not be replaced as it was not defective but caused by tenant misuse. It highlighted that at the time of installation on 18 June 2019 the cabinets were in perfect condition and approved by the landlord and no complaint was raised for over a year. It stated that it would rectify the faulty tap only.
On 30 October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord about escalation of her complaint.
On 2 November 2020, the landlord contacted its contractor and asked for the agreed works to be performed to the cabinetry and flooring at the resident’s property. It had previously advised that the contractor had already ordered the new cabinetry. The landlord stated that the resident advised it that it was one of its contractors that caused the damage to the linoleum flooring.
On 6 November 2020, the contractor advised the landlord that the works had been signed off by the landlord over a year ago but it attended in June 2020 as a goodwill gesture. It was discovered that the kitchen unit was misuse by the resident and not a defect and that it would not be replaced as it had passed its defect period. It provided photos of the kitchen units after installation that displayed no damage to it or the flooring.
On 23 November 2020, the resident reported issues with the electric cooker at the property. She highlighted that it had not been properly reinstalled when the new kitchen was installed in 2019 causing it to short circuit. The landlord sent out an emergency electrician that day and made safe the cooker. The report provided stated that the safety chain had been disconnected and the contractor believed that the cooker ‘had either been accidentally disturbed, thereby pulling out and damaging the integrated wiring, or deliberately pulled out’.
The resident wrote to the landlord seeking an update in relation to her complaint on four separate occasions between the 30 November 2020 and 18 December 2020. The landlord responded on 18 December 2020 and apologised for the delay and stated that it would provide an update as soon as possible.
On 24 December 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and advised that an electrician would attend to assess the wall connection. It said that the contractor would assess if the cooker worked or if it would need to be replaced. It advised that if the cooker was broken it would be the resident’s responsibility to replace. It highlighted that it would however, as part of the complaint resolution, look at a contribution towards the cost. The resident said that it was the contractor’s fault who reinstalled the cooker and wanted to see the electrician’s report.
The resident sought an update from the landlord on 12 and 18 January 2021 in regard to the outstanding repairs to the kitchen units and cooker. The resident advised that she was withholding rent payment until the landlord fixed the issues. She stated that if she did not hear back from the landlord by next week she would exercise her right to repair using her January rent.
On 19 January 2020, the landlord provided an update to the resident and advised that the electricians report said that there was no issue with the power socket and that the wiring had been pulled out from the wall. It advised that it would not cover the cost of the new cooker as it was the residents appliance. It advised that the contractor that installed the kitchen in 2019 would not repair the cooker as it had been working for 18 months after it had completed the works. The landlord advised that it would provide an update about the kitchen unit next week.
On 22 January 2020, the resident advised that she did not accept responsibility to fix or replace the cooker as the damage was as a result of the contractor ‘pulling out and/or re-wiring the cooker’ whilst it replaced the kitchen in 2019 and therefore it was the landlord’s responsibility. She advised that in regard to the kitchen units, it was the same information that the landlord had provided previously and that nothing had progressed.
On 29 January 2021, the landlord issued the resident with its complaint appeal response. it addressed the following issues:
1. It advised that it was not its responsibility to replace the resident’s cooker. It could not be determined from the two electrical reports the exact cause of the fault. It advised that it was making enquiries on behalf of the resident to a tenancy fund to see if financial support could be given to replace the cooker.
2. It advised that the contractor would not replace the kitchen unit and therefore the landlord would repair or replace the unit as required under the tenancy agreement and it had been passed to its surveyor.
3. That the mixing tap had been replaced by the contractor however it refused to repair the flooring as it was inspected and approved in 2019.
4. It highlighted that the appeal would be considered by the complaints panel on 5 February 2021.
On 8 March 2021, the landlord’s complaints panel issued its final response and addressed the following:
1. Kitchen unit – the contractor had reattended the property in June 2020 and attempted to repair the unit but was unsuccessful. It advised that it would not replace the unit as it was fitted correctly and the warranty had passed. The landlord accepts that the unit needed to be replaced and was working on arrangements. It apologised for the delay and that the resident had been inconvenienced for so long.
2. Mixer Tap – the contractor followed through with its promise to replace the mixer tap however it was delayed due to the sourcing of a part. The landlord apologised for the delay and inconvenience caused.
3. Floor Markings – the contractor advised that there were no issues with the kitchen flooring when it completed works in June 2019 and provided photographic evidence. Due to that reason the landlord advised that it would not replace the kitchen flooring.
4. Electric cooker – the resident blamed the contractor for the cooker failure due to it rewiring and refitting it when it carried out the original kitchen work in June 2019. When the landlord was alerted of the issues it responded immediately and sent out an emergency electrician and made the cooker safe. It liaised with the contractor about the repairs to the cooker however the contractor advised that ‘it was not their fault as the cooker had been working for 18 months after it had performed the kitchen refurbishment’. The landlord advised that it would not replace the cooker as it did not supply it and remained privately owned by the resident. It stated that it does not repair or replace the private possessions of tenants. It apologised for the way the complaint was handled and for the inconvenience of not having a cooker. The landlord advised that it would be providing compensation for the way that it handled the complaint. It advised that it had also secured an additional £80 to help with the cost of the replacement cooker.
5. Compensation – the landlord acknowledged the service failures for the delay and inconvenience experienced by the resident as well as the partial loss of the kitchen and the loss of a cooker. It awarded the following:
  1. £100 for the inconvenience and partial loss of the kitchen.
  2. £100 for the delay in resolving the repair issues in the kitchen.
  3. £100 for the delays in communication and its complaint appeal handling.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the kitchen at the property including cupboards, mixer tap, linoleum flooring and electric cooker.

The resident first raised issues in relation to the kitchen unit and mixer tap at the property on 6 April 2020. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to carry out non-emergency repairs within 20 days. The landlord took a resolution focused approach and informed the contractor that installed the kitchen that there were issues with its work. The contractor attended the property on 10 June 2020 and fixed the issue with the kitchen unit and advised it would fix the mixer tap once a part arrived. It is accepted there was also an initial unavoidable delay at this stage due to the national lockdown and Covid-19 pandemic which was relayed to the resident.
On 28 June 2020, the resident advised that the kitchen unit had collapsed again and that there was damage to the flooring that would need to be replaced. The landlord and contractor inspected the issues and the contractor agreed to carry out the required works. The contractor later advised the landlord that it would not replace the kitchen unit as it had passed its defect period. It also advised that there was no issue with the flooring when it completed the works in June 2019 and therefore would not replace it.
It was reasonable for the landlord to check if the kitchen works were covered by warranty as the works were relatively new. Whilst a repair was carried out by the contractors to the kitchen unit it re-occurred soon afterwards and the contractors refused to return to complete further repairs. The landlord agreed to perform the repairs to the kitchen unit however there was a significant four-month delay from when the landlord first discovered that the contractor would not complete the works until it issued its final response and the works had still not been completed. This delay was not approprate or in line with the landlord repairs policy and it should have taken it upon itself to complete the further repairs to the kitchen unit.
In relation to the linoleum flooring, the contractors provided evidence from the time that the floor was installed in 2019 that there were no issues. The resident failed to make a complaint until September 2020, the elapse of time makes it difficult to establish who is responsible for the damage and the resident is expected to raise complaints as soon as they are aware of the issue. The landlord acted in line with its tenancy agreement by informing the resident that it would not replace the linoleum flooring as it’s the ‘resident’s responsibility to maintain all flooring at the property’.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage one and two complaint responses that the resident had been significantly inconvenienced by the delay in it performing the repairs. The landlord took a resolution focused approach and extended an apology and offered £100 for the inconvenience and partial loss of the kitchen and £100 for the delay in resolving the repairs issues. Taking into consideration the delay and inconvenience to the resident and the effect that not having one kitchen unit had, the landlord made a proportionate offer of reasonable redress to compensate for the inconvenience experienced in this part of the complaint.

Repairs to the electric cooker.

The resident first raised issues with the electric cooker at the property on 23 November 2020. The landlord acted appropriately and in line with its repairs policy and made safe the appliance within 24 hours. The landlord then correctly communicated with the contractor whom the resident believed was responsible for the damage however there was a delay in getting to the bottom of the cause. It was determined by the contractor that it was not responsible to repair or replace the cooker as it had worked for a period of 18 Months after it completed it works to the resident’s kitchen. The landlord had an electrician come and inspect the electrical socket and it was found to be working normally.
The landlord appropriately informed the resident that it would not cover the cost of the cooker in line with its repairs policy as it was purchased and owned by the resident. The landlord appropriately advised that it would be providing compensation for the delay in handling the complaint and that it had secured an additional £80 to help with the cost of the replacement cooker. Overall, the landlord’s actions were fair and inline with good practice and procedure, the complaints handling delay led to distress and inconvenience which the landlord offered adequate compensation as seen below.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy, if the resident made a complaint at the first stage the landlord should formally respond within 10 working days. The documentation provided shows the initial complaint by the resident was made on 14 September 2020 and the landlord supplied a formal response on 8 October 2020. This represents an 8 working day delay however given it had to communicate with the contractor in order to provide a response it was a minor shortcoming.
The resident asked for a review of the decision on 30 October 2020 and the landlord progressed the complaint and provided its final stage two panel review on 8 March 2021. This represents a significant three-month delay in the landlord providing the resident with its stage two panel response and it failed to appropriately alert the resident about the delay in line with its complaints policy. The landlord however offered the resident £100 for the delays in communication and its complaint appeal handling which was approprate to compensate for its failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Scheme, there was an offer of reasonable redress by the landlord in respect to:
1. The complaint about repairs to the kitchen at the property, including cupboards, mixer tap and linoleum flooring.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect to repairs to the electric cooker.

Reasons

The landlord failed to complete the repairs to the kitchen unit in line with its repairs policy. The landlord appropriately took a resolution focused approach and extended an apology and offered £100 for the inconvenience and partial loss of the kitchen and £100 for the delay in resolving the repairs issues which was reasonable to compensate for the landlord’s failure.
There was a significant delay in the landlord providing its stage two panel review to the resident, however it offered and apology and £100 in recognition of its acknowledged failures.
The landlord was not responsible for the repair or replacement of the resident’s cooker and it took approprate steps to ensure that the property was made safe when the resident reported the issue. The landlord appropriately communicated with the contractor on the resident’s behalf and provided the resident with an £80 voucher to help with the cost of another cooker.

Recommendations

The landlord is to perform any outstanding repairs to the kitchen units in line with its repairs policy.
The landlord reoffers the resident the £200 in respect to the delay in repairing the kitchen unit, if it has not already been paid.
The landlord reoffers the resident the £100 for its complaint handling failure, if it has not already been paid.