Ashford Borough Council (202106882)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106882

Ashford Borough Council

27 Febraury 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the kitchen replacement. This includes the following concerns:
1. Disrespect shown to him and his home.
2. The time it took for the works to be completed.
3. The lack of communication about the programme of works, and the method and way the works were undertaken.
4. Loss of food in freezer and the smell of rotten food.
5. Stress and illness caused.
The resident also complained about damage to his carpets during the works.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(G) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The resident’s complaint about damage to his carpets caused during the works.
The resident has expressed upset about the state of his carpets, he did not believe there was a reason for contractors to be going in and out of his living room or hallway, however he believed this took place and explained that it resulted in his new carpets looking like ‘someone has mixed cement on it’. He also said that his bathroom carpets smelt like urine, so he had to dispose of them.
In response the landlord investigated the matter and found there was some construction debris trodden into the carpet, the contractors apologized arranged for the carpet to be cleaned on 21 June 2021. However, the resident remains dissatisfied with the outcome and would like a replacement.
Following the resident’s concerns, the landlord’s actions in arranging to clean the carpet were appropriate. Whilst this service understands the resident would like a replacement instead, it is not within the scope of this investigation to determine the level of damage.
This is because we cannot determine complaints about damages and/or liability for damages. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.” This is because such matters are better suited via an insurance claim or the courts. This service has however considered below in the assessment the landlord’s actions to have the carpets cleaned.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The tenancy commended on 11 November 2019 and the property is a two-bedroom bungalow. The resident has vulnerabilities which the landlord is aware of.
On 7 August 2020, Occupational Therapy (OT) informed the landlord that several works needed to be carried out to the property as the resident was having difficulty with kitchen access. These recommendations included:
1. Create a partition wall to divide the lounge and the kitchen.
2. Existing fridge freezer to be re-sited in the kitchen beside the entrance to the lounge.
3. Worktop to follow round from the fridge freezer to where the boiler is sited set at the existing work top height.
4. Worktop to the right-hand side of fridge freezer to have knee recess, depth of 600 mm.
5. Additional cupboards to be fitted above this worktop area on the right-hand side of the re-sited fridge freezer, and in the far-left hand corner when facing the existing oven, set at the existing height as the other cupboards.
6. All cupboards fitted above the worktop to have drop down basket shelves fitted, and roller baskets fitted for the cupboards below.
7. Replace the existing kitchen sink/drainer with a sink that is on the right side and the drainer to be positioned on the left side, with enough room underneath for the existing dishwasher to be reinstalled.
8. Resident’s preference to have the boiler re-sited and the wall removed.
Following this on 15 April 2021, a work order for the kitchen refurbishment was raised. The landlord proceeded to provide a letter to the resident on 20 April 2021 informing him that the work was due to commence on 26 April 2021, this also included the programme of works scheduled. The works were completed on 9 June 2021. During this time the resident decided to live with his daughter.
During the works, the resident had discovered his freezer had been switched off which resulted in food going off. He reported this to the landlord and on 21 May 2021, the landlord’s contractors sent a letter to the resident offering him a goodwill gesture of £70 for food which had expired in the freezer.
On 27 May 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord. His complaint was about the ‘disrespect’ to himself and his home by contractors and staff, he expressed that they had trashed his home, damaged his property, and he stated they had ‘left him to deal with the carnage after’.
Subsequently on 18 June 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response. It acknowledged its understanding of the complaint to be about the following;
1. Disrespect shown to the resident and his home.
2. The time it took for the works to be completed.
3. The method and way the works were undertaken.
4. Lack of communication regarding programming of works.
5. Damage to carpets by a contractor.
6. Loss of food in freezer and the smell of rotten food.
7. Stress and illness caused.
The landlord stated it visited the resident on 25 March 2021, to discuss the kitchen adaption works recommended by the OT report. It also acknowledged the resident was frustrated at the length of time taken for work to be completed since the OT report in August 2020. However, it explained, based on the extent of works and condition of the kitchen, it went above the required recommendation and accommodated the resident’s wishes to relocate the boiler, remove a stud wall and replace the kitchen units. The landlord explained that the works commenced on 26 April 2021 and were completed within 3 weeks.
The landlord could not identify any disrespect shown to the resident or his home. It explained that it had informed the contractors extra care should be taken due to the possibility of the resident’s immunity suppression and recent treatments. In regard to the resident’s home, it explained that all plans had been discussed and agreed.
In response to the length of time for works to be completed, the landlord stated that these took a total of 7 weeks, from the initial meeting until completion. It explained that generally it allows 3 weeks to complete a kitchen, however at the time due to Covid-19 it rules it was required to limit the number of operatives in a given space and keep distance. This resulted in periods of inactivity to keep operatives apart and provide sufficient time to complete their tasks.
It was further explained that the resident had been provided with a programme of works on 20 April 2021, which set out how the kitchen replacement would be conducted. The landlord also noted that meetings were held with the resident before and during the works.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the carpet being damaged. It explained the contractors had apologised for this and offered for the carpet to be cleaned on 21 June 2021. The contractors had also offered £70 as a gesture of goodwill as it could not determine liability for the spoiled food in the freezer.
In response to the resident’s comments regarding stress and illness caused, the landlord was unable to find any record of illness being mentioned because of the works.
On 21 June 2021, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and as a result it was escalated to a stage two complaint. This was acknowledged by the landlord and a visit was made to the resident on 14 July 2021 to discuss the issues further.
The landlord proceeded to issue its stage two response on 9 August 2021. It understood the complaint to be about the following;
1. The resident was aggrieved that no one had spoken to him about the events and cause for complaint and felt the matter had not been investigated properly.
2. Dissatisfaction with some of the works.
In response to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the works completed, the landlord explained the remedies it agreed to undertake were:
1. Replace ceramic floor tiles as it was accepted that the tiles were not laid parallel to walls.
2. The threshold trim to the hallway door will be fixed down or replaced.
3. The assembly of the corner base unit near cooker will be rectified.
4. To paint the complete wall a colour of the resident’s choice which matches existing décor.
5. It agreed that a combined heat detector and CO alarm would be fitted for neatness.
6. It agreed to install a ceiling fan/light in the bedroom.
7. The landlord explained that going forward it would review its specification and supplier of cooker hoods and seek a higher extraction rate for similar price point and with acceptable noise levels.
As the resident remained dissatisfied, he brought the complaint to this service for adjudication. The resident is seeking compensation and the replacement of carpets.

Assessment and findings

This service understands the resident states that illness was caused by the landlord’s handling of the kitchen replacement. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments, understands his concerns and appreciates that the works were disruptive to him. However, it is beyond the remit of this service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the kitchen replacement and the resident’s health. Whilst we cannot conclusively establish a link between the works and the impact on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to any distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced.

Disrespect shown to the resident and their home

The resident has expressed he felt a lack of respect and misuse of trust from the landlord’s contractors and that his house and belongings were covered in brick and dust. He also said that his wet room floor was left with urine and cement stains which resulted in him disposing of his mats.
In response the landlord explained that it was unable to identify disrespect shown to the resident or his home. Following discussions with the resident and contractors the landlord explained that during the process of works it explained it had taken the resident’s wishes and protection into consideration, it had advised for extra care to be taken. Following the concerns, the landlord had also visited the resident to observe the home.
The landlord visited the resident on 25 May 2021, and agreed to have the carpets cleaned. Whilst we acknowledge the distress caused to the resident, on reviewing the information available, this service has not seen sufficient evidence to support the resident’s claims. Given the nature and extent of the works, it is understandable that this would have resulted in some disruption in the resident’s property, and the landlord’s approach to address his concerns was proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances.

The time it took for the works to be completed

The resident has expressed that he is unhappy with the length of time it took to complete the works and considers that it was unacceptable for the landlord to use Covid as a reason for the time taken. He believed it was down to poor management.
The landlord had explained that due to the restrictions imposed from covid-19, this impacted its usual way of operating and it was required to allow sufficient additional time for operatives to complete their task and clear up prior to the next operative working. This was to keep different contractors apart.
In accordance with the landlord’s repairs handbook, this type of improvement would be considered planned maintenance. It does not state specified timeframes, however states residents should be contacted in advance by the contractor or landlord to carry out any surveys which may be required prior to the work commencing. In this instance, the evidence shows that the landlord had contacted the resident prior to inform him of the start date. It did not state when the works should be completed by.
In its response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that whilst it usually allows three weeks to complete the works, this took longer due to the circumstances.
Whilst this service understands the distress this caused the resident, we also recognise the impact Covid-19 had on landlords’ resources and ways of working. Given the circumstances, it was reasonable and responsible for the landlord to ensure the environment was safe for its staff and the resident. This service has not seen any evidence of unreasonable delays, the works took a total of eight weeks and whilst it is clear that this was very disruptive and frustrating to the resident this is not an unreasonable protracted length of time, given the operational constraints in place at the time.

The lack of communication about programme of works, and the method and way the works were undertaken.

It is understood that the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the method, manner, and communication regarding the programming of works including that he did not receive a programme of works from the landlord or its contractors. He has also expressed upset at not having the contractor’s details to communicate directly with them.
The evidence shows that on 20 April 2021, the contractors had written a letter to the resident to inform him of the schedule of works due to commence on 26 April 2021. This document also contained its contact details.
The evidence shows that the contractor had been in touch. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was having to chase the landlord to obtain the details of the contractor. It is reasonable to say there were several opportunities for the resident to further obtain the contractors’ details during the several visits contractors made to the property.
In its response the landlord stated that it was clearly set out to the resident the way in which the kitchen was going to be progressed. The landlord explained that it followed a logical plan and sequence of operation to allow all trades to follow on sensibly. However, the resident has expressed there was no logical plan.
It is clear there is a difference of opinion as to whether the landlord had followed a logical approach. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that would suggest that the landlord’s approach was unreasonable. It is important to note that whilst the landlord may provide a schedule of programme works, it is not bound to carry these out as stated, as in some instances it may be required to divert or amend the order of works once work has started, for practical reasons.
Taking everything into consideration, including the resident’s views, there is no evidence that there was maladministration in the landlord’s overall approach.

Loss of food in freezer and smell of rotten food.

It is understood the resident accepted a goodwill gesture from the contractors in regard to food which had gone off in the fridge. However, the resident remained unhappy with the smell of the fridge. As noted above it is not within the scope of this investigation to determine damage or liability, however consideration has been given as to what actions the landlord took once it had been informed of the issue.
The evidence shows that when the landlord was informed of the incident regarding the food going off in the freezer, it apologised to the resident, and proceeded to discuss this with its contractors, who were unable to confirm fault, however, were willing to compensate the resident as a gesture of goodwill. The contractors agreed to reimburse the resident for the estimated value of food spoiled, which was £42.24, and an additional amount as a gesture of goodwill which totalled £70.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, considering the lack of evidence to support that the landlord or contractors were responsible, the actions which they took to put things right for the resident were positive and proactive.
Whilst this service acknowledges the resident’s distress and his comments that despite cleaning the freezer there is still an odour coming from it, we are not in a position to determine fault or liability, as set out earlier in this report.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s kitchen replacement.

Reasons

This service has not seen any service failing by the landlord or its contractors in its approach to refurbishing the kitchen. We understand the resident’s frustration in the matter, however due to the Covid-19 pandemic we also recognise that there were circumstances outside of the landlord’s control, and therefore works would have taken longer than expected. The landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns before reaching its conclusion.