A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202121164)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121164

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

27 September 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. Response to the resident’s concerns about her oven and kitchen units.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is the shared ownership leaseholder of the property and her lease commenced on 8 July 2016. The property was newly built.
3. From April 2020 to August 2021 the resident corresponded at length with the landlord about her kitchen, reporting that the oven was causing damage to the kitchen cupboards either side of the oven. The landlord referred her to both the new build warranty provider and the kitchen manufacturer. The warranty provider confirmed that the kitchen was not covered. The kitchen manufacturer informed the resident  that the reported defect was due to incorrect fitting by the developer.
4. In an email to the landlord dated 29 July 2021 the resident alleged that the kitchen had been installed negligently, and if the landlord did not rectify the problem she would “contact Trading Standards and if necessary the Housing Ombudsman.” The landlord logged this as a complaint. It responded on 6 August saying that as the issue was a warranty matter being dealt with by another of the landlord’s teams it would not investigate it as a complaint.
5. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 17 December 2021 that she had since been offered replacement edging by the kitchen manufacturer to replace the damaged edging to her cupboards, but she was not prepared to meet the cost of employing a carpenter to carry out the repair. She asserted that the damage had occurred as a result of “negligence” in fitting the kitchen.
6. The resident attempted to raise her complaint again and this was declined by the landlord on 3 May 2022; it again said that this was because the matter was a warranty issue. A copy of the resident’s new complaint to the landlord has not been provided for this investigation.
7. Following contact by the resident, this Service asked the landlord to lodge a formal complaint for her. It did so on 15 July 2022, and issued its response on 25 July. It acknowledged that she wanted the landlord to install a heat shield and make good the damage to the cupboards. It said that it had no record of the resident reporting the kitchen during the property’s defects period, and had previously informed her on number of occasions that the matter was a warranty issue to be considered by the kitchen manufacturer or the NHBC.
8. The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 2 August 2022. She contended that the matter was not a warranty issue, and was a “common defect” which affected all similar shared ownership properties at her housing development. The resident contended that there had been negligence as the kitchens had been installed without a heatshield, which indicated to her that the shared ownership properties had inferior kitchens installed.
9. The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 5 September 2022, which did not uphold her complaint. It asserted that the installation of a heat shield was not specified on the kitchen plans and was not necessary for a modern kitchen. The landlord confirmed that the kitchen was installed in accordance with the plans. It considered that its responses to the resident’s concerns had been timely and appropriate and explained that her kitchen differed only cosmetically from those in the freehold properties on the development.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

10. In her complaint to the landlord the resident alleged that the problems in her kitchen were due to negligence. The ombudsman cannot make determinations of negligence and associated liability, as that is a legal argument and one that can only be resolved through the courts. Rather, this investigation considers the reasonableness of the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports, but does not seek to determine liability for the resident’s kitchen problems.
11. Through the resident’s complaint to the landlord reference was made to the kitchen issue being widespread amongst other leaseholders. This particular complaint was brought to the Ombudsman by the resident on her own behalf, and has been considered on that basis. Nonetheless, a recommendation to the landlord has been made below in regard to whether other leaseholders may also have had similar experiences.

Response to the resident’s concerns about her oven and kitchen units.

12. The lease agreement between the resident and the landlord confirms that the resident is responsible for repairs to the interior of the property, including any fixtures and fittings. It follows then that she would be responsible for any repairs to the fitted kitchen in the property.
13. When a property is newly built, there is an defects period, usually of one to two years, during which any ‘snagging’ issues or repairs which come to light will be dealt with by the property developer. The landlord’s responsibility during this period is to liaise with the developer as necessary to facilitate the timely completion of any such issues. No evidence of a report by the resident about the kitchen or oven in the defect period has been seen in this investigation. If such a report had been made, the landlord’s obligation would have been to work with the developers to ensure the issue was resolved.
14. In its responses to the resident’s complaint the landlord explained its understanding of there being no problems reported about the kitchen during the defects period, that the kitchen had been fitted in line with the relevant specifications, and that the heat shield referred to by the resident was not a standard fixture. While the resident understandably disagrees with the landlord’s position and conclusions, nothing in the evidence seen for this investigation undermines the landlord’s explanations.
15. Overall, the resident argues that some form of heat shield should have been used around the oven when the kitchen was installed. She based her argument on the kitchen manufacturer’s advice and recommendations, which is understandably persuasive. Nonetheless, the landlord disputes that such a fixture was ever intended to be installed, or that it needed to be. No evidence has been seen which would robustly support one side of the argument over the other. Even if there was such evidence, the lease makes clear that the resident is responsible for the repair and maintenance of internal fixtures and fittings, and therefore the landlord is not obliged by the lease to resolve issues like this.
16. Within the very specific limitations of what the Ombudsman can consider, the landlord’s conclusions and explanations to the resident’s reports and concerns were reasonable. As things stand, ultimate resolution of this issue appears to be one that might only be resolved through legal action.

Complaints handling

17. By mid-2021 the resident had been in lengthy correspondence with the landlord about the kitchen issue. Her email of 29 July 2021 set out her frustration with its explanations and decisions not to accept responsibility. She referred to wanting to escalate the issue to the Ombudsman. Rather than investigate the matter as part of its complaints process, the landlord declined to do so, on the grounds that this was a warranty matter. That was not reasonable. The resident was clearly dissatisfied with what the landlord had been doing up to that point, and, regardless of the nature of the issue, the complaints process was the right method to address that dissatisfaction. A complaint investigation would allow the landlord to review and consider its handling of the matter independently of the staff who had been directly involved. It could then provide to the resident some reassurance that it was satisfied with its officers’ handling, following which she could then approach the Ombudsman.
18. Alternatively, a complaint investigation could potentially have identified some course of action, shortcoming, or resolution which had not yet been considered by those directly involved. That outcome did not eventuate from the landlord’s subsequent investigation of the complaint, but it needed to be investigated in order to get that clarity. Accordingly, not investigating following the resident’s 29 July complaint email was a missed opportunity and a failing.
19. We do not know what issues the resident raised in her second attempt to raise a complaint in early 2022. Nonetheless, the grounds given by the landlord in its decision not to investigate were the same as previously. For the same reasons as before, that decision was not reasonable, as the landlord’s handling of the warranty issue was potentially a valid complaint.
20. The impact of the landlord’s decisions was to delay the resident bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman, extend the complaints process excessively, require the Ombudsman’s intervention, and understandably caused the resident additional inconvenience and frustration.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about her oven and kitchen units.
22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

23. In light of the landlord’s poor complaint handling it is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation. This should be done within four weeks of this report.
24. The landlord must also review its complaint handling and identify what learning it can take from the resident’s experience, and how it will implement such learning. It should do this within six weeks of this report.
25. Evidence of completing these two orders must be provided to the Ombudsman within their respective deadlines.

Recommendations

26. As noted above, the resident referred to other leaseholders affected in a similar way to her. The landlord’s correspondence with her acknowledged her reports. It is not apparent what action or enquiries it has made in that regard. Nonetheless, the landlord is urged to consider and investigate the potential of wider problems. If wider problems are identified the landlord should give serious thought to what proactive steps it may be able to take to work with and assist leaseholders others who may be in a similar situation.
27. Recommendations are not orders, and are not monitored by the Ombudsman in the way orders are. They are suggestions which the landlord should consider, but whether it acts on them or not is at its own discretion.