Abri Group Limited (202103454)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103454

Abri Group Limited

16 March 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:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports of a faulty kitchen sink.
   2. Complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident moved into the property by way of mutual exchange on 31 August 2020.  The resident is an assured tenant of a three bedroom house, owned and managed by the landlord.
3. The resident reported that there were holes in the kitchen sink which was causing it to leak into the unit below.  She requested that the sink be replaced.
4. The landlord was initially unclear as to whether or not the sink was a non-standard item that the resident was ‘gifted’ by the previous resident and therefore whether it was liable to replace it.
5. The resident had signed a disclaimer for non-standard items in the property when she accepted the mutual exchange. The disclaimer had listed the kitchen worktops as non-standard items.
6. The landlord determined that the sink was covered in the disclaimer the resident had signed for non-standard items in the property as part of the kitchen worktop, and it was therefore not responsible to replace it.
7. The Housing Ombudsman Service accepted the landlord’s email of 24 February 2021 as the landlord’s final response to the complaint and the complaint was accepted for investigation on 12 May 2021.
8. Following this Service writing to the landlord requesting evidence for its investigation the landlord responded with a second final response dated 16 August 2021.  In its correspondence to this Service the landlord explained that:
   1. There were delays in progressing the complaint to Stage Two and the response was not compliant with the provisions of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
   2. Further training had been delivered to the complaints team.
   3. The landlord had reviewed the complaint.
   4. The landlord had since agreed to replace the sink but did not uphold the complaint; and was taking this action as a gesture of goodwill. It informed the resident that once fitted it did not accept liability for the sink going forward.
   5. The sink replacement was booked for 22 September 2021.
   6. It apologised to the resident for any inconvenience that its initial miscommunication about whether it was liable to replace the sink may have caused her and it had taken steps to ensure that this did not happen to another customer again, by retraining its customer contact teams in its mutual exchange processes.
9. The resident has confirmed to this service that the landlord has replaced the sink, but not the unit surrounding it and that it still occasionally leaks.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a faulty kitchen sink

10. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy and procedure says that all non-standard fittings will be noted, and the incoming tenant must agree to accept full responsibility for these items in the assignment paperwork. The resident signed a disclaimer saying that the landlord was not liable for the non-standard fittings, including kitchen units and worktops.
11. The landlord’s reliance on the wording of the disclaimer was not fully supported by the wording which did not clarify that the kitchen worktops including the kitchen sink. There was also miscommunication by the landlord to the resident when it was initially unclear as to whether or not the sink was a non-standard item that had been ‘gifted’ by the previous resident. This represented a service failure by the landlord, which the landlord has acknowledged.
12. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman’s will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case the landlord has offered redress for its failings in both its response to the resident’s reports of a faulty kitchen sink and in its complaints handling. Therefore, for clarity the reasonable of the redress offered by the landlord has been considered in relation to both complaints together in paragraphs 17 to 20 below.

The landlord’s complaints handling

13. The landlord’s complaints procedure says that the landlord aims to respond to a complaint within 10 working days and all complaints shall be responded to within 20 working days. The resident made her complaint on 9 December 2020, but the landlord did not send her its stage one response until 10 February 2021, 42 working days later and 22 working days later than the 20 working day timescale set out in its complaints procedure.
14. The landlord’s complaints procedure also says that if the resident remains dissatisfied following the outcome of their complaint at Stage 1, they have the opportunity to escalate their concerns to Stage 2. The Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code also sets out the requirement for complaints procedures to comprise of two stages. This ensures that a resident has the opportunity to challenge any decision by correcting errors or sharing concerns via an appeal process.
15. However, in its stage one complaints response the landlord said it had escalated the resident’s concerns as far as it could and referred her to this Service if she was unhappy with the stage one response, thereby denying her the opportunity to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure.
16. Taken in isolation the landlord’s complaint handling failures are sufficient to represent maladministration, and the landlord has acknowledged these failures.

Assessment of the reasonableness of the redress offered by the landlord

17. As set out above when there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman’s will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, review of the complaint and replacement of the sink) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account 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.
18. The landlord acted fairly by apologising to the resident for any inconvenience that its initial miscommunication about whether it was liable to replace the sink may have caused her.
19. The landlord put things right by:
    1. Reviewing the complaint.
    2. Replacing the sink as a gesture of good will.
20. The landlord demonstrated that it had learnt from outcomes by:
    1. Retraining its customer contact teams in its mutual exchange processes.
    2. Providing further training to its complaints team.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for the failures identified in its:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of a faulty kitchen sink.
    2. Complaints handling.