Places for People Group Limited (202213764)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213764

Places for People Group Limited

8 February 2023


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 request for her kitchen to be replaced due to damp and disrepair.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a three-bedroom house, and she has resided there since 2021.
  2. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 22 June 2022 as she was dissatisfied that it had not replaced her kitchen, despite advising her it would do so after she reported its poor condition when she moved in the previous year. She stated her kitchen was damp, generally in poor condition and she thought it was unsafe due to the presence of sharp edges and holes in the walls. In her subsequent complaint escalation, she stated she had also been without an oven for a year as the kitchen she had selected from the choices the landlord provided for the proposed replacement required an oven that was not compatible with the current kitchen layout, and she could not afford to purchase both.
  3. In the landlord’s final complaint response, sent on 24 August 2022, it said it would arrange for a damp assessment to be carried out and to arrange any remedial works required to the kitchen. It apologised that the previously referred to proposed work programme to replace her kitchen had not proceeded, as it was budget dependant and had been impacted by COVID-19. It said it had had to redesign its investment programme and the resident’s property had not been included, but it would aim to replace her kitchen within the next five years. It apologised that it had not contacted the resident to clarify that her property was no longer included in the programme, and it offered her £50 compensation for its poor communication and £50 for the distress caused. 
  4. The resident contacted her MP to refer her complaint to this Service on 12 September 2022. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, the fact the kitchen replacement would now be delayed and that there were outstanding kitchen repair issues including damp, damaged cupboards, rusty hinges, sharp edges, a hole in the wall and tiles falling off the wall. She did not think the kitchen was safe or hygienic, and the issues were causing her stress and anxiety.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s website states it is responsible for repairs of any fixtures and fittings it has provided. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that non-emergency repairs will be completed within 28 calendar days. As such, when the resident reported repair issues to the kitchen, the landlord was obliged to complete any required repairs in line with its response timeframe.
  2. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In this case the landlord acknowledged it should have advised the resident that her kitchen was no longer included in the planned programme of works at an earlier date.
  3. The landlord explained that the resident’s kitchen was no longer in the planned replacement works, as due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on its services, it had undergone budget changes. It said it had reassessed its investment programme based on additional surveys it had undertaken and would not focus investment on geographical areas to reduce disruption to residents and to ensure value for money. It is important to note that social landlords have limited resources, and the impact of COVID-19 on their budgets was unexpected and out of their control. As a result, it was reasonable that the landlord assessed where funding was most required and sought to use its resources responsibly to the benefit of all its residents. This led to the resident’s kitchen replacement being delayed. Although this would have naturally disappointed the resident, the landlord was entitled to take this position and its explanation was reasonable. It also appropriately provided the resident with a new expected timeframe for the kitchen replacement to manage her expectations.
  4. It was reasonable that the landlord had utilised the complaints process to provide clear and appropriate reasons for its decision to postpone the resident’s kitchen replacement. However, as the landlord had previously set the expectation with the resident that her kitchen would be replaced in October 2021, it should have acted more promptly to update her when it had decided her property would no longer be included in the planned schedule of works. Its failure to do so for a prolonged period clearly impacted the resident and would have caused her confusion. Furthermore, as the landlord has provided limited evidence and no records of communication it had with the resident prior to her complaint, it is unclear whether she had pursued the kitchen replacement with the landlord at an earlier date. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. However, it does not appear its record keeping has been as comprehensive as it should have in this case.
  5. The resident advised the landlord in her complaint escalation that she had not had an oven for a year. This was due to the fact she had selected a kitchen (from the choices provided by the landlord in June 2021, when she was still expecting the kitchen to be renewed imminently) which required a built in or ‘fitted’ oven, whereas her current kitchen required a freestanding one. As she was anticipating the kitchen to be renewed in 2021, she had delayed purchasing an oven compatible with the current space as it would be left redundant when the new kitchen was fitted, and she could not afford to buy both models of oven. While the landlord would not necessarily be responsible for providing the oven, it failed to acknowledge the resident’s concerns in its response and does not appear to have considered the impact its failing had on the resident. However, the resident may not have advised the landlord of her concerns at an earlier date, so it is unclear if it had the opportunity to mitigate the impact this had on her.
  6. Although it was the landlord was entitled to decide that the resident’s kitchen replacement would no longer be included in the upcoming planned works, it still had a responsibility to ensure that the kitchen was maintained to a reasonable standard and to complete any required repairs. The resident had reported damp in the kitchen, issues with her cupboards and the presence of ‘sharp edges’. In accordance with the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property, so it should take steps to ascertain whether there was a structural cause of the reported damp. The landlord’s website also states that it is responsible for repairs to any fixtures and fittings it has provided, so it should assess the condition of the kitchen and complete any required repairs.
  7. The resident initially reported on 14 June 2021 that the kitchen cupboards were damp, but it is unclear whether any repairs were completed, as the resident was advised the kitchen would be replaced. The resident re-raised her concerns regarding the kitchen on 22 June 2022 and the landlord raised the necessary work orders on 21 July 2022. However, there is no evidence that an appointment was attended until 17 November 2022, in which the landlord’s repair records show that a carpenter attended to complete the required works to the kitchen (it is assumed this was to the cupboards). This was significantly outside its 28-day target for routine repairs, as it took almost five months from when the resident reported the repair issues for an appointment to take place. This was not appropriate and appears to constitute an unreasonable delay.
  8. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had completed any repairs to resolve the damp and mould issues. It is of particular concern that the resident stated in her complaint that she proceeded to arrange for an independent survey to be carried out, which concluded there was unacceptable levels of water in the walls and cupboards, and there is no evidence that the landlord subsequently took any action to resolve the reported issues. This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould (‘It’s Not Lifestyle’, published in October 2021 and available on the Housing Ombudsman’s website) recommended that “landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue”. In internal communication in July 2022, the landlord noted that an order for a damp assessment had been raised but it is unclear whether any works have since been completed. The landlord has therefore failed to evidence that it proactively tried to resolve the issues with damp and mould in the property or that it responded in a timely manner. This was not appropriate and would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. An order has therefore been made at the end of this report for the landlord to complete a damp and mould inspection and any repairs that are identified as being required, if it has not done so already.
  9. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its failings to some extent as it recognised its communication failings, which left the resident being under the impression that her kitchen was due for replacement for almost a year before the landlord clarified that that was no longer the case. The landlord offered her £100 compensation and demonstrated it had learned from the case, advising that it had implemented processes to prevent a recurrence of the issue. While it was positive that the landlord made an attempt to “put things right” via its offer of compensation, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, its offer was not proportionate to the inconvenience this failing had caused to the resident and an order has been made at the end of this report for the landlord to pay an increased amount of compensation to the resident to better reflect its poor communication.
  10. Additionally, it was not appropriate that the landlord does not appear to have properly acknowledged the further failings identified in this report, including its failing to take meaningful steps to remedy the damp and mould, delays in arranging appointments for the kitchen repair issues and its failure to acknowledge the resident’s concerns regarding the oven. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £250-700 are appropriate in cases where the Ombudsman has found “considerable service failure or maladministration but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant”. Examples of this include landlords providing inadequate or incorrect information, a failure over a considerable length of time to act in accordance with policies or failing to address all relevant aspects of a complaint.
  11. The landlord’s failure to progress the repairs issues led to additional distress and inconvenience to the resident, particularly as she had young children, and she experienced additional time and effort in pursuing the issues. As a result, a further order has been made at the end of this report for the landlord to pay the resident compensation that reflects the level of service failure and the impact this had on her.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s request for her kitchen to be replaced due to damp and disrepair.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £600 compensation due to the failings outlined in this report. This consists of £400 to reflect failures with its repairs handling and investigation of the damp and mould reports and an increased offer of £200 for its poor communication regarding the kitchen renewal. For clarity, this is in place of the landlord’s final offer of £100, rather than in addition to it.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with this order to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.
  3. If it has not done so already, the landlord should complete a damp and mould inspection and complete any works that are identified as being required. The landlord should provide evidence that the survey has been completed and provide an action plan regarding any identified works, together with a timeframe for their completion, to this Service within eight weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its record keeping practices, to ensure it has comprehensive records of communication with residents.