The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Folkestone & Hythe District Council (202231756)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231756

Folkestone & Hythe District Council

30 July 2024


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 works to refurbish the resident’s kitchen.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a house, where she lives with her 4 children and her dog. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for her household.
  2. The landlord arranged for the resident’s kitchen to be refurbished by its contractor as part of its planned refurbishment programme in 2022. It recorded that the contractor advised her this would take 2 to 3 weeks to complete, but that this took 3 weeks longer than this after they began works to do so in September 2022 that were completed in October 2022. The resident also reported that her new kitchen cupboard fell down from the wall and trapped and distressed her dog in September 2022, as well as damaging items and making her concerned for her children’s safety. She added that she previously told the contractor that the cupboard was not properly secured to the wall due to a gap.
  3. The landlord also recorded that it responded to the resident’s report of bare electrical wiring in her kitchen by arranging for its electrical contractor to inspect her property’s electrical installation in September 2022. This found the installation to be in good condition after testing. The landlord’s refurbishment contractor additionally responded to the resident’s report to them in September 2022 that her cooker had been disconnected for 2 weeks, which had caused her extra food costs from her limited cooking facilities, by offering her £50. Its inspector then visited her property in October 2022 and chased the contractor to complete tiling, door, skirting, window, extractor fan, cooker, cupboard, socket, sink unit, and sealing works in her kitchen.
  4. The landlord’s contractor subsequently spoke to the resident in October 2022 about her dissatisfaction with their handling of her kitchen refurbishment. She explained that she sought compensation for the disruption, stress, and upset caused by the falling kitchen cupboard nearly hitting her dog and damaging items, as well as for being without her cupboard for 2 weeks. The contractor therefore wrote to the resident in October 2022 to offer to increase their previous offer that she had declined to £100, as well as apologising for her distress and inconvenience, as she did not seek a specific amount of compensation. As she was dissatisfied with and declined this increased offer, she made a stage 1 complaint about this to the landlord in November 2022.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response in November 2022 apologised for its contractor’s handling of the kitchen refurbishment, issues, service, and the resident’s stress and disruption. It accepted this took longer than expected and there was a lack of communication from the contractor, but they resolved her bare electrical wiring concerns straight away. The landlord also responded to the resident’s reports of rubbish in her garden by confirming the contractor was expected to remove this, of them damaging her £360 cooker by referring this to the contractor to investigate, and of her cupboard collapsing by upholding this complaint. It therefore agreed to discuss this with its contractor to improve future kitchen installations and timescales and upheld their previous £100 offer.
  6. The resident then made a final stage complaint to the landlord in January 2023 about the previous compensation offer not being acceptable for her experience, stress, having 4 children in her property, and the danger to her household. She added that the contractor delayed her kitchen refurbishment, did not take responsibility for or pride in or care for this, lacked internal communication, and left her with incomplete jobs and missed appointments, asking to receive £2,500 compensation for this. The landlord’s January 2023 final stage complaint response apologised for its contractor’s delays, poor workmanship it offered £100 for, and the resident’s inconvenience it offered £300 for.
  7. The landlord explained that the contractor paid the resident to replace her damaged cooker, reiterated they resolved her bare electrical wiring concerns straight away, but said they had contacted and made offers to her for the above issues. It added there was some poor workmanship including fitting her sink and wall cupboard, stated this was resolved with no further concerns reported, and it sought to ensure timely future installations and updates to residents on delays through monitoring via inspections and regular contractor meetings.
  8. The resident nevertheless complained to the Ombudsman the landlord’s compensation offer it paid her was unreasonable for the delays, poor workmanship, safety concerns, time, stress, and inconvenience she experienced. She was also dissatisfied its contractor did not make a meaningful apology, left mess in her property, continued to send the operative who fit her kitchen cupboard that fell, did not learn from further issues with poor workmanship and disrespectful operatives, and had delays causing her to travel and eat elsewhere. The landlord told us it offered to pay the resident’s vet bill for her dog she declined as unnecessary and the contractor unsuccessfully attempted to repair her cooker twice before paying for her to replace this.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that its planned works programmes are carried out when components such as kitchens have reached the end of their estimated lifecycles and need replacing. It is to arrange such planned works based on information from its systems, surveys and repairs, plan these to ensure they meet residents’ expectations, and renew aspects and components that have reached or are reaching the end of their useful lives. The landlord is also responsible for repairing items including fire doors and electrics within 28 working days.
  2. The landlord initially handled the works to refurbish the resident’s kitchen in accordance with its repairs and maintenance policy. This is because it relied on information from its systems, surveys, and repairs to arrange for its contractor to begin replacing the kitchen from 6 September 2022, as it assessed this as reaching the end of the estimated lifecycle or useful life and needing replacing, in line with the policy. The landlord also originally planned the kitchen refurbishments via the contractor to meet the resident’s expectations by aiming to complete these within 2 to 3 weeks, which meant by 20 to 27 September 2022.
  3. It was therefore inappropriate the landlord did not meet the resident’s expectation to arrange for its contractor to finish her kitchen refurbishment within the above timescale, as required by its repairs and maintenance policy. They instead carried out kitchen refurbishment works, including for plumbing, electrics and units, both during and after this timescale on 9, 15, 16, 21, 22 and 23 September and 5 October 2022. Moreover, the landlord’s inspection on the latter date found outstanding kitchen tiling, fire door, skirting, trimming, extractor fan, cooker, boxing in, socket, unit and sealing works, which it chased the contractor for on 6 and 14 October 2022. This meant works to refurbish the kitchen were still due almost 3 weeks after the original completion timescale.
  4. The landlord’s contractor’s original works to refurbish the resident’s kitchen additionally did not fully comply with its repairs and maintenance policy’s obligations for components to be replaced or renewed, and to repair the fire door and electrics within 28 working days. This is because she explained on 23 September 2022 that her new kitchen cupboard, which was not properly secured due to a gap, fell from the wall, trapped and distressed her dog, damaged items, and made her concerned for her children’s safety. This is very concerning and was followed by the landlord having to chase the contractor to repair the fire door and electrics on 14 October 2022, which was 28 working days after the works began on 6 September 2022, contrary to the policy.
  5. It is also of concern that the resident reported having bare electrical wiring in her kitchen. However, it is noted that the landlord described this as having been resolved this straight away and that its electrical contractor’s installation condition inspection and report on 29 September 2022 tested her property’s electrics and found these to be in good condition. The bare electrical wiring was therefore resolved within its repairs and maintenance policy’s 28-working-day timescale for it to do so after its contractor began the kitchen refurbishment works on 6 September 2022.
  6. Moreover, it is concerning that the resident explained that she had additional food costs for 2 weeks in September 2022, as the landlord’s contractor’s works had disconnected her cooker and so limited her cooking facilities, causing her to travel and eat elsewhere. This is additionally of concern because she had to do so with 4 children, which would have increased her resulting time, trouble, distress and inconvenience, as well as due to the contractor damaging the cooker leg, unsuccessfully attempting to repair this twice, and leaving rubbish in her garden, which was unsuitable.
  7. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord and its contractor sought to follow the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right. This is because they apologised to the resident on 19 October and 14 November 2022 and 27 January 2023 for her distress, inconvenience, stress, disruption, delays, and poor workmanship from their handling of her kitchen refurbishment, which was suitable. The landlord and the contractor also sought to follow the former’s compensation policy by awarding her payments for their failures to meet their obligations and her reasonably incurred resulting food and repair costs. This is due to its contractor’s £50 and £100 offers, including for increased food costs, and their payment to allow the resident to replace the £360 damaged cooker.
  8. Moreover, the landlord exercised its discretion under its compensation policy to recognise the unreasonable 3-week delay the resident experienced for her kitchen refurbishment and fire door and electrics repairs, and the poor service she received for this and the above cupboard, wiring, cooker, and rubbish. This is because it paid her £100 for the poor workmanship she received and £300 for the inconvenience she experienced. It is nevertheless concerning the resident reported the contractor lacked responsibility, pride, care and internal communication, leaving incomplete jobs, missed appointments, no meaningful apology, mess in her property, an unsuitable operative returning, and subsequent poor workmanship and disrespectful operatives.
  9. However, the total of the landlord’s and its contractor’s above payments was within the range of compensation recommended by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance of over £600 to recognise failures that had a significant physical, emotional, and other impacts on the resident. Their payments were therefore proportionate to put things right in her case in line with its compensation policy and our guidance. The landlord additionally explained it followed our dispute resolution principle to learn from the outcome of the case. It did so by seeking to improve future kitchen installations, timescales, and updates to residents on delays by discussing the complaint with the contractor and monitoring these via inspections and regular contractor meetings.
  10. The above measures were appropriately practical steps to try and implement learning to improve the landlord’s and its contractor’s future kitchen refurbishments, which was suitable. It was also reasonable that it explained that it responded to the kitchen cupboard trapping and distressing the resident’s dog by offering to pay her vet bill. It would nevertheless have been suitable if the landlord had taken further action to seek to resolve her outstanding concerns about increased food costs, no meaningful apology from its contractor, and subsequent poor workmanship and disrespectful operatives suggesting lessons were not learnt.
  11. The landlord has therefore been recommended below to arrange for its contractor to re-offer the resident the £100 they previously awarded her. This is to recognise her outstanding concerns about them and increased food costs from the kitchen refurbishment, in line with its compensation policy. Moreover, the landlord has been recommended to arrange for the contractor to write to the resident to apologise for their failings in her case, accept responsibility for these, acknowledge the impact on her and her family, express sincere regret, and outline their learning from this, as recommended by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It has additionally been recommended to review its relevant staff’s and contractors’ training needs on planned works programmes.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves her complaint about its handling of works to refurbish her kitchen satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Arrange for its contractor to re-offer the resident the £100 they previously awarded her to recognise her outstanding concerns about them and increased food costs from the kitchen refurbishment.
    2. Arrange for its contractor to write to the resident to apologise for their failings in her case, accept responsibility for these, acknowledge the impact on her and her family, express sincere regret, and outline their learning from this.
    3. Review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs in relation to the application of its repairs and maintenance policy and all other relevant policies and procedures to planned works programmes to ensure these are timely, effective, and residents are updated on any delays.