Livv Housing Group (202113520)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113520

Livv Housing Group

23 June 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 the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
3. In March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and made a formal complaint as he believed that his kitchen was beyond repair and needed replacing. The resident mentioned that in the previous year the landlord had sent out its contractor to inspect the condition of his kitchen and bathroom. It is unclear from the information provided exactly when this happened; however, on inspection, the contractor confirmed to the resident that the kitchen was beyond repair and informed the resident that his kitchen would be replaced in early 2021 as it was on the list of properties required to undergo a full kitchen refurbishment.
4. The landlord responded to the resident’s formal complaint in April 2021 to inform him that kitchens were replaced on a cyclical basis and the full refurbishment of the resident’s kitchen was part of an investment program with a planned commencement date of 2031. It acknowledged that the resident’s kitchen had suffered the normal wear and tear of a family living in it over several years.
5. The resident was dissatisfied with this as he had been told his kitchen and bathroom would be replaced in early 2021 and he also mentioned that he would be happy to contribute to the refurbishment cost.
6. In May 2021, the resident sent photos to the landlord, showing the kitchen worktops had marks on them, the kitchen unit doors were blown and chipped, kickboards needed to be replaced, and the kitchen plinth needed repair.
7. The landlord sent its contractor to inspect the kitchen in June 2021. The contractor found that the vinyl covering on a number of wall unit and base unit doors were blown, chipped and peeling; however, the contractor did not agree to complete repairs to the kitchen units doors. The contractor raised repair works for the kitchen plinths to be renewed and the kickboards to be replaced. The contractor had also noticed there were marks on the current worktops. They suggested to the resident a new section of worktop would need to be sourced, so that the colour matched the current units, if a replacement was required. The resident then asked the landlord if it could install an additional worktop over the fridge space which the landlord had agreed to do as a gesture of goodwill.
8. Between June and October 2021, the landlord arranged for its contractor to carry out the agreed repair works to the kitchen plinth, replacement of kickboards and to install the kitchen worktop. The work to fit the kitchen worktop was delayed as the contractor could not find a matching worktop. The resident mentioned that the landlord did not address works to change the kitchen unit doors; however, the landlord stated it had not agreed to do this following the repairs inspection.
9. On completion of the repairs, the resident was dissatisfied that the standard of workmanship was poor as the new section of worktop did not match the existing worktop.
10. The landlord issued its final response to the resident in May 2021 which did not uphold the resident’s concerns of the poor standard of workmanship; however, it confirmed that there was a delay in the implementation of the agreed works and it also confirmed that the resident was misadvised by the contractor for the timescales of the refurbishment of the kitchen. The landlord offered to compensate the resident £100 for the delay in sourcing the worktop.
11. In October 2021, the landlord confirmed it would not be carrying out further works to the kitchen as its surveyors had found the kitchen to be fully functional and all the repair works to fit the worktop, plinth and kickboards had been completed. It is unclear from the correspondence of the exact date of when the repairs were completed.
12. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident explained that, to resolve matters, he would like the kitchen to be replaced and that he was willing to contribute towards the cost. The resident said he would like a replacement kitchen as the current jobs to fit the worktop, plinth and kickboards were completed to a poor standard as the wood on the worktop was a completely different colour to the rest of the kitchen and the kickboards were fitted too far back, creating a gap between the laminate flooring and the kickboards where water was now penetrating under the laminate flooring.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

13. It should be noted that the resident also raised issues with the bathroom as part of his original complaint to the landlord, but it does not appear that this was escalated to the Ombudsman. This Service cannot investigate aspects of a complaint which have not exhausted a member landlord’s complaint procedure, because the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to formally respond. Nevertheless, from the information provided, it does not appear the resident pursued this issue beyond the original complaint. Therefore, this aspect will not be considered in the below assessment

Policies and Procedures

14. The landlord lists the types of repairs it is responsible for in the tenancy agreement which includes: kitchen and bathroom vinyl repairs, repairs due to wear and tear, skirting boards and floor boards.
15. The landlord’s handbook also refers to home improvements in that the resident has the opportunity to make alterations or improvements to their home.
16. When completing planned work, the landlord will inform the resident 28 days in advance or give as much notice as possible. The landlord’s handbook states a routine repair is normally completed within 28 days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen.

17. In accordance with the government’s Decent Home Standards guidance, the expected lifetime of a kitchen in a house or bungalow is 30 years. The landlord had informed the resident her kitchen was due to undergo a full refurbishment in 2031, this is within the 30 years however, if the kitchen is damaged during the 30year period and cannot be economically repaired, then the full refurbishment may be required at an earlier date. The landlord would be entitled to repair the kitchen in the first instance before arranging a replacement. In deciding whether to arrange a repair or replacement the landlord was entitled to rely on the conclusions of its contractor that the kitchen could be repaired rather than needing a full replacement and accordingly the decision to not install a new kitchen earlier was reasonable in the circumstances.
18. However, there was some miscommunication about the kitchen repairs as the landlord’s contractor told the resident the kitchen would be replaced when they attended a year before the complaint was raised. It would have understandably been disappointing for the resident to find out that the kitchen would not be replaced having been told that it would be. The landlord acted reasonably by apologising for this error in its complaint response. The landlord would not be obliged to replace the kitchen based on the contractor’s advice to the resident as another contractor and a surveyor employed by the landlord recommended that the kitchen could be repaired and did not require replacement.
19. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s request to contribute to pay towards the kitchen replacement. The landlord’s handbook states that the resident would be able to request to contribute towards home improvements and the landlord is obliged to provide a written response informing the resident of its decision. Therefore, this Service would have expected the landlord to respond to the resident’s request. To put things right, the landlord should acknowledge the resident’s request, apologise for not providing a response, and provide written confirmation regarding its decision on the matter.
20. The landlord adhered to its obligations as it was responsible to carry out repairs to the plinth and kickboards and had offered to replace the kitchen worktop as a gesture of goodwill.
21. The landlord arranged an initial repairs inspection which was carried out in May 2021 but it was not until October 2021 when the landlord confirmed the works were completed. During this time, the landlord failed to communicate with the resident the reasons for the delays in carrying out the works, which was due to sourcing a matching worktop. Additionally, the landlord refused to replace the kitchen unit doors when the contractor had confirmed on inspection some of these were chipped and peeling. The pictures presented by the resident showing the condition of his kitchen prior to repairs appear to confirm the contractor’s opinion as the photos show signs of chips and peeling on the cupboards. It is not reasonable to leave parts of the kitchen which require work to be carried out unrepaired and therefore the landlord should repair all of the cupboard doors which are damaged or replace them if they cannot be repaired. The landlord should attempt to match the colour of any new doors to the existing doors. Although it is understood the new doors may not match exactly due to variations in the manufacturing process, if the new doors are significantly different in appearance to the existing doors, then the landlord should replace all the cupboard doors within the fitted kitchen so they match.
22. As set out above, the landlord has acknowledged some errors in its complaints process. It has apologised for the delay in completing the works and offered £100 compensation to the resident for the delays caused in sourcing the correct worktop. This amount was in line with its own compensation policy which suggests amounts of up to a maximum of £50 where the landlord has failed to complete a qualifying repair within its timescales and is also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which suggests awards between £50-250 where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. The delay in completing the repairs was clearly inconvenient and the landlord could have done more to keep the resident updated, but the delay was partly outside the landlord’s control as it was waiting for the worktop to be supplied. Therefore, the compensation amount the landlord offered for the delay was reasonable, in view of all the circumstances.
23. When the landlord completes any repair works, it should be in a position to satisfy itself that the work undertaken has been completed to a good standard.  In this case, there were concerns raised about poor workmanship and in view of this the landlord should have arranged a post-inspection to satisfy itself that the repairs were of an acceptable standard. The landlord should now carry out an inspection now to check if any further repairs are required in response to the resident’s concerns about the quality of the repairs which the resident has reported were not adequate.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen.

Orders

25. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a further £200 compensation.
26. This is in addition to the landlord’s previous offer of £100 compensation for the delays taken to complete the agreed works due to sourcing the worktop, which should now be paid if it has not been paid already.
27. The payment should be made within four weeks of this decision.
28. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to carry out an inspection of the standard of repair works done to the kitchen. If any further repairs are identified as necessary following this inspection, they should be completed in line with the timescales listed in the landlord’s repairs policy.

Recommendations

29. The landlord should review its record keeping practices concerning repairs to ensure that it has detailed records of the work which was carried out and the dates of any appointments.