Woking Borough Council (202104548)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104548

Woking Borough Council

19 July 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:
   1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of her kitchen.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a secured tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident reported that kitchen units were falling off on 16 April 2021. The landlord’s records indicate that contractors first attended the property on 11 May 2021, reporting that “many units were in disrepair and the draw and door fronts were missing”. They also noted that “the tenant removed remains of units above the microwave whilst I was onsite”. It is unclear whether any repairs were carried out at that time.
4. On 25 May 2021 the resident contacted this Service complaining about the condition of the kitchen and delays in thelandlord’s handling of repairs. After an initial delay, we passed the resident’s concerns to the landlord to treat as a complaint.
5. The landlord issued its complaint response on 20 August 2021. It explained its understanding that the resident was dissatisfied with the condition of the kitchen and that a member of staff had alleged she had damaged the kitchen units (in a letter issued earlier in the year in response to the resident’s requests for the kitchen replacement). The landlord explained that a replacement was not scheduled until the 2022/2023 financial year, but that it would carry out any necessary repairs in the meantime. The landlord scheduled a new repair appointment for 7 September 2021.The landlord acknowledged that its officer had been unwise to directly challenge the resident’s actions, but explained that he had been acting consistently with the information available at the time.
6. On 2 September 2021, the resident’s support worker asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. She denied having damaged the kitchen herself and wanted the landlord to carry out repairs, further than those required to make the kitchen safe.
7. In an email on 24 September 2021, the landlord presented the evidence it had relating to the resident causing some damage to the kitchen, and concluded that any additional works beyond making safe would be considered rechargeable. It further acknowledged that the kitchen required works. It therefore said it would arrange an appointment with its surveyor and they would then discuss the elements that would be considered rechargeable.
8. The landlord issued a stage two response on 25 January 2022. It confirmed that a surveyor had attended the property on 4 November 2021 for an inspection, who had explained the range of works required. The landlord explained that after further consideration, and in light of the resident’s situation, it would not recharge her for repairs. However, it explained that: “having this work completed may affect the outcome of the stock condition survey review of your kitchen which is due to take place next financial year (…) another inspection would take place next year to determine the priority/need for replacement, carrying out these repair works are likely to add further time to the renewal due date as the current state of the kitchen would be improved significantly”.
9. The resident escalated her complaint again in February 2022. She acknowledged that the landlord’s repair actions would make the kitchen “workable and useable”, but felt it was unfair to delay the replacement.
10. The landlord completed its complaint review in August 2022. It said that, to date, repairs had not been accepted by the resident. Although it was satisfied with its stage two response, the landlord confirmed that a new repairs contractor would attend the property to re-assess the repairs required at that time. It said that if repair costs were prohibitive, the resident’s kitchen would be added to the list of works scheduled for the current financial year (2022/23). The landlord stated it now accepted that the damage to the resident’s kitchen was due to general wear and tear. It apologised for offence caused by comments made by the contractors.
11. The evidence suggests that, following an inspection on 10 August 2022, the landlord confirmed the replacement of the resident’s kitchen. Although the exact date is unclear, the kitchen was replaced between January and February 2023.
12. The resident referred her complaint to this Service in November 2022, as she was dissatisfied with the time it was taking the landlord to renew her kitchen and its overall handling of the situation, including the allegations that she was responsible for the damaged condition of the kitchen. The resident is seeking compensation for the impact that living without a working kitchen, and the subsequent complaints process, has had on her mental and physical health, as well as the costs incurred.

Assessment and findings

Scope

13. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Such concerns are better dealt with as a legal claim for personal injury. However, this Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident.
14. It is important to understand that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether the resident’s kitchen should have been renewed or replaced or repaired. The Ombudsman has neither the technical nor practical expertise or knowledge to do that, and our investigations are based on paper and electronic evidence – not first-hand inspection. This investigation focuses on the reasonableness of the landlord’s explanations, actions, and decisions at the time it made them and with the information it had available.

Condition of kitchen

15. The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord will keep in good condition the kitchen fittings. The landlord’s Planned Programmed Works policy states that the landlord will maintain its properties in good condition through programmes of planned works, which are determined through information from stock condition surveys, consultation with residents, officers’ recommendations, and historical knowledge. Following the resident’s reports on 16 April 2021 that the units in her kitchen were damaged, the landlord visited the property on 11 May. There is evidence that the landlord attempted to visit the property on further occasions to ensure that the kitchen units were in a safe condition but could not gain access. Due to the resident’s concerns, the landlord wrote to her on 21 June 2021 asking her to allow the repairs team to complete repairs, as she was not yet eligible for a new kitchen. This was reasonable, because the decision on whether to replace or repair was the landlord’s to make. In the situation where it did not believe replacement was yet necessary, it was obliged to address any repair issues.
16. In its complaint response on 20 August 2021, the landlord confirmed that the resident’s kitchen would not be replaced yet, and scheduled an appointment for repairs on 7 September, explaining that previous appointments in June and August had been cancelled by the resident. The landlord managed the resident’s expectations by informing her that the replacement of the kitchen would take place in the following financial year (2022/23) at the earliest. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns, but explained that it had liaised with its officer and had based its decision on evidence and findings from them and its repairs contractors. These actions were in line with its planned works policies.
17. In an email dated 24 September 2021 after the complaint was escalated to stage two, the landlord first made accusations that the damage to the kitchen was caused by the resident. The reasons for these accusations were due to the opinions of its operatives, and its assessment that the kitchen’s condition appeared to be greater than the typical wear and tear to be expected. The landlord then stated that any additional works carried out beyond making safe would be considered rechargeable. The landlord further confirmed its position in the stage two response dated 25 January 2022, it then provided the cost of the works for the resident to consider. During this period, the resident denied being the cause of the damage and expressed frustration at being accused. After the second escalation, the landlord provided a third response dated 4 August 2022 where it apologised for the accusation and explained the cause of the damage was due to wear and tear.
18. While the landlord apologised and provided an update in relation to its current position, this Service does not consider its response to be sufficient. The landlord accused the resident based on the information it had been provided and its own assessment of the circumstances, all of which were outside of the residents control. Furthermore, as a result of the accusation, the landlord explained that certain works beyond making safe would be rechargeable. As the resident was aware that they had not caused the damage, this conclusion caused further distress to them and delayed any resolution being agreed. All of these issues being considered amount to service failure, this is particularly considering the fact that the accusations were ongoing for several months.
19. When considering the level of distress the landlord caused the resident during the period of accusation, this Service considers it proportionate and reasonable that the landlord compensates the resident £200 for the failings identified above. The Ombudsman is entitled to make its own determination on the level of compensation based on its assessment of the impact of the landlord’s failures when dealing with issues a resident has raised. When considering this impact, the Ombudsman is not limited to a landlord’s compensation policy. Instead, it focuses on what it deems fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
20. Following on, the resident was reluctant to proceed with repairs because of the landlord’s explanation that they might affect the date of the replacement of her kitchen. Part of a landlord’s assessment of a kitchen’s suitability for replacement is its current condition and the urgency of renewal. If the repairs improved the overall condition of the kitchen (even to only a basic level), it stands to reason that the renewal urgency would potentially be reduced, which is something any landlord is obliged by basic housing management practice to weigh up. Furthermore, the landlord explained that this was a possible outcome, not a definite one. The resident’s hesitation with the repairs was perhaps understandable, but it meant that the repair work could not be done.
21. On 4 August 2022 the landlord issued a complaint review in which it committed to reassess the repairs required to the kitchen. The decision to review the repairs again was reasonable given the time that had passed since its previous decision. It stated that, if repair costs were prohibitive, it would prioritise the replacement of the kitchen for the current financial year, i.e. 2022/2023. The resident informed this Service that the kitchen was finally replaced in February 2023, which is one of the options the landlord said it would aim for.
22. Overall, the decision to repair or replace a kitchen was the landlord’s to make, in line with its policies and procedures, needs of the resident, and budget. In this case, the landlord clearly explained in its correspondence with the resident, and its complaint responses, why it believed the kitchen was not yet suitable for replacement, and why it would instead make repairs. Its decision and explanations were in line with its stock condition policy, and with its tenancy obligations to repair and maintain the kitchen, something which the resident acknowledged the repairs would do. At a minimum, landlord’s are required only to provide a kitchen which works and is useable.
23. The kitchen replacement was ultimately completed in the 2022/2023 financial year, which is what the landlord originally explained it would do. The landlord also attempted to maintain and repair the kitchen in the interim, which it also explained it would do, and was in line with its obligations.
24. Since replacement of the kitchen, the resident has raised additional issues relating to the quality of the works. This issue will need to be raised with the landlord for consideration, as this issue is a new matter that arose after the landlord replaced the kitchen. A new complaint will need to be raised regarding the quality of the works. To assist in resolving this matter, an additional order has been included requesting that the landlord inspects the property to assess if any additional works are required, and to complete this within a reasonable period if it has not done so already.

Complaint Handling

25. Following the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 2 September 2021, the landlord sent an email clarifying certain issues and stating that a panel review could not be carried out due to Covid-19 pandemic. This Service wrote to the landlord on 20 January 2022 requesting a final response. The landlord used this opportunity to put things right and issued a stage two response on 25 January 2022.
26. The landlord’s complaints policy states that stage two responses will be provided within 10 working days, unless a complaints panel has been requested, then the response will be due within 20 working days. Whilst this Service noted the fact that the landlord corresponded with the resident prior to the stage two response and continued to discuss the issues, these communications would not be regarded as a stage two response so this Service does not consider it reasonable that the landlord delayed for 4 months, particularly as no evidence was provided to show that the landlord sought an extension to provide a formal response. Having considered all of the circumstances, the landlord’s failings, and delay in responding to the resident after the escalation of their complaint amount to service failure. This Service considers the compensation amount of £150 to be proportionate and reasonable due to the length of the delay and the level of impact on the resident.
27. Following the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage two response, the landlord confirmed it would conduct a complaint review in line with its internal policies. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out that two- stage complaint procedures are ideal, as this ensures that the complaint process is not unduly long. However, if landlords strongly believe a third stage is necessary, they must set out their reasons for this as part of their self-assessment. Moreover, the landlord’s complaint procedure confirms it explains that it self-assesses its performance against the Code, which it publishes in May each year. A copy of its self-assessment was not found during this investigation. As such, an additional order has been included requesting that the landlord review its internal complaint handling policies against the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and ensure its annual self-assessment is clearly accessible from its website.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of her kitchen.
29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

30. The landlord is ordered to, within four weeks of the date of this report:

–          Pay the resident £200 compensation, in light of its failures in relation to the condition of her kitchen.

–          Pay the resident £150 compensation, in light of its complaint handling failures.

–          Review its internal complaint handling policies against the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and ensure its annual self-assessment is clearly accessible from its website.

–          Complete another inspection of the property and confirm any works that are outstanding to the resident, supported by evidence. Work should then be booked within 6 weeks if the landlord has not done so already.

31. Evidence of compliance with orders must be provided to this Service by the deadline.