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

Berneslai Homes (202220807)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220807

Berneslai Homes

15 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 handling of:

a)     The replacement of the resident’s kitchen.

b)     The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord is the freeholder of the property.
  2. The resident reported concerns to the landlord regarding the condition of her kitchen, with the landlord carrying out an inspection on 30 September 2021. The landlord noted that some of the backboards and shelves were rotten, and the kitchen was in a poor condition with mould visible at the back of the cupboards.
  3. The landlord attended three further times between 30 September 2021 and 22 April 2022 to try and identify the cause of the mould and carry out repairs to address the issue, including replacing all external waste pipes and pointing around the kitchen window.
  4. On 22 April 2022, the landlord confirmed that there was black mould in the kitchen and that due to the condition of the units, the kitchen would need to be replaced.
  5. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 17 June 2022, advising she had been told she would be getting a new kitchen in October 2021, and that she had been waiting for the landlord to contact her following its visit to her property on 22 April 2022. The resident advised that she had been told to box everything up in the kitchen ahead of these works. The landlord acknowledged this complaint on both 17 June 2022 and 30 June 2022.
  6. The landlord contacted the resident on 6 July 2022 to confirm that the works would be released to a surveyor in the next month. The landlord noted that as a result the resident wished to withdraw her complaint and wrote to the resident confirming this on the same day. The resident advised on 12 July 2022 that she did not wish to withdraw her complaint. The landlord reopened her complaint. The landlord provided a complaint response to the resident on 3 August 2022, apologising for the confusion and delay in the kitchen replacement works but advised that the kitchen would be scheduled to be fitted by the end of September 2022. The landlord confirmed that a works order would be released in August 2022 and the works would be passed to a private contractor in order to avoid further delays in the works being completed.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 November 2022, as she had been waiting for the landlord to confirm a start date for the new kitchen and had not received any further contact from the landlord. The resident confirmed an operative had attended to measure up the kitchen, but there had been no further progress.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 December 2022 requesting that her complaint be escalated as she was not satisfied with the lack of progress with her kitchen and the lack of communication from the landlord. The landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 10 January 2023 in which the landlord confirmed that it had not identified that the kitchen needed full renewal until its visit on 22 April 2022. The landlord advised that visits prior to that had been in attempt to address the issues of damp within the kitchen. The landlord confirmed the works order for the repair was agreed on 27 April 2022. It apologised for the confusion and delay over start dates for the works, and over the resident’s complaint being withdrawn. The landlord offered £200 compensation to the resident, which she accepted.
  9. The landlord carried out a home visit to the resident’s property on 15 December 2022, following the escalation of her complaint. The landlord provided the resident with a start date of 23 January 2023 to install her new kitchen, which would take approximately 2 weeks to complete. These works were completed on 3 February 2023.
  10. The resident was not satisfied with the delays in the kitchen being installed, the poor communication from the landlord regarding the progress, and how her complaint was handled. The resident initially accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation but stated that she did not feel this was adequate due to delays and the impact this had on her. The resident is seeking further compensation from the landlord for the distress caused by this matter.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident had raised concerns with this service following the landlord regarding the quality of the new kitchen installation. It would not be reasonable for this Service to consider this issue as part of the current investigation. This is because the resident’s concerns about the quality of the kitchen works were not raised as part of the resident’s complaint through the landlord’s complaints process. The Ombudsman is not able to consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, she can complain to the landlord about the problems with the kitchen after it was installed. She may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s replacement kitchen.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states the landlord will respond to routine repairs within 25 working days. Where the landlord is unable to address the issue within that time period, itmay have to arrange follow on works.
  2. In this instance, the landlord had established that in order to carry out necessary damp repair works, the kitchen would need to be replaced, due to its poor condition. As the landlord had made this decision to replace the kitchen outside of its own planned work replacement, it would be considered under the landlord’s repair policy and the timescales within that for routine repairs. In general, kitchen replacements would be scheduled in advance as part of a planned programme of improvement works across the landlord’s stock. However, in this case it would not be reasonable for the resident to have to wait for a scheduled programme of works because of the repair issues and the kitchen should have been replaced in line with the landlord’s timescales for routine repairs, although it is expected that it would have taken longer than 25 working days due to the need to take measurements, plan the kitchen and order units etc.
  3.  The kitchen needed to be replaced, partly due to damp and mould which could not be effectively treated while the units remained in place. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould published in October 2021 made several recommendations to landlords in how issues with damp and mould should be addressed to prevent the ongoing risks connected with this.
  4. The Spotlight report published by this Service regarding Damp and Mould stated.

(i)                 “Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.”

And

(ii)                “Landlords should ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.”

  1. The landlord had made attempts to identify the cause of the damp and mould to the resident’s kitchen and carried out reasonable repairs and investigations to attempt to resolve this matter. The landlord had carried out repairs to external waste pipes and pointing around the kitchen window, as well as treatment to the affected areas. The landlord correctly identified that the work had not been successful and that in order to fully resolve the issue of damp, it would need to remove kitchen units, and due to the poor condition of the units, the landlord identified that the kitchen would need to be replaced as it felt the current units would not remain intact if they were removed. The landlord had attempted to resolve the issue of damp within the resident’s kitchen and progressed this to a kitchen replacement to ensure it was able to carry out necessary damp works to the kitchen. This was a reasonable approach under the circumstances.
  2. The resident stated that the landlord had advised her kitchen had been condemned following a visit in October 2021. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s testimony, but the documentary evidence provided does not demonstrate that the landlord had advised the resident her kitchen was either condemned or unusable at this stage. The landlord advised at this time, it had been attempting to resolve the issues with damp, but identified on 22 April 2022 that the kitchen would need replacing in order to carry out the necessary damp works. The landlord had established that the kitchen was in a poor condition at this point and was correct in agreeing to replace the kitchen. This was reasonable from the landlord and overall, there is insufficient evidence that the landlord misadvised the resident regarding when the kitchen would be replaced from October 2021 and April 2022.
  3. From establishing that the resident’s kitchen needed to be replaced and the new kitchen being fitted, was 198 working days. While the landlord had indicated that a delay had been caused by the kitchen units being out of stock at one stage, this would not account for delays of this length. Due to these delays, the resident had to live with an issue of damp and mould within her kitchen for a period of 9 months. This was not reasonable. Where there are delays, this service would expect the landlord to reasonably communicate with the resident to ensure they are being kept updated during this process. The landlord had failed to keep the resident updated and this caused confusion and distress for the resident. When it became apparent that the kitchen would not be replaced within a reasonable timeframe, the landlord should have attempted to carry out temporary repairs to ensure the kitchen remained functional whilst it was awaiting a full replacement. The landlord did not do this, and this failing would have added to the resident’s inconvenience whilst she was awaiting the kitchen replacement.
  4. The resident had repeatedly raised concerns with the landlord regarding the flooring not being level, and this leading to gaps in the floor and the kickboards around the base of the units being uneven. The evidence provided shows the resident raised this to the landlord on 22 April 2022. The resident again raised this concern with the landlord prior to the new kitchen being fitted. The landlord advised this would be addressed when works began. This service has been advised that this matter is still outstanding following the kitchen works being completed by the landlord. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to address this issue prior to the works beginning on the kitchen to ensure this matter was fully resolved for the resident. The landlord should arrange for operatives to attend the resident’s property to ensure these works are completed.
  5. The landlord’s communication and stage one complaint response to the resident demonstrate the resident being given conflicting timescales for the kitchen works. The surveyor advised the resident that works would not begin until October 2022, with the landlord then advising the resident in its stage one complaint response that the kitchen was programmed to be fitted around the end of September 2022 and it would involve a private contractor to speed up the process. The works did not begin until 23 January 2023. The landlord had failed to reasonably manage the resident’s expectation regarding these works. By providing the resident with conflicting information and timescales for the kitchen replacement, this caused the resident confusion and distress, and may have led to the resident feeling the landlord was not taking this matter seriously, as well as creating a false expectation from the resident as to when the works would have been completed.
  6. The resident raised her stage one complaint as she had not received any communication from the landlord regarding the progress on the kitchen replacement. Following the landlord’s stage one complaint response, there is no record of any communication from the landlord to the resident until she contacted the landlord again on 17 November 2022 seeking a start date for the works. This was two months after the landlord had advised works were due to start. This indicates that there was either no contact from the landlord, or there had been a record keeping issue. Either way, this was unreasonable from the landlord and would not have given the resident confidence that she was being listened to or taken seriously.
  7. The landlord apologised for the impact this had on the resident and made an offer of £100 compensation for the incorrect information being provided to her regarding her kitchen installation. The landlord’s complaints policy states that compensation would be considered when a service failure had caused inconvenience and/or stress for a resident, with a compensation range of between £100-£500 when there had been a succession of service failures, or the landlord had failed to resolve the issue within a reasonable timeframe. While this Service acknowledges that the landlord had made this offer and acknowledged its failings, this offer is not proportionate for failings in this matter and the impact this had on the resident.
  8. In line with this Service’s remedies guidelines, published on our website the landlord should offer additional compensation of £500 to bring the total compensation offered for this aspect of the complaint to £600, due to the delays and time it took for the kitchen be replaced, and the failure in communication with the resident during this period.  The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range are appropriate where there have been failings by the landlord which affected the resident but there may be no permanent impact from the failings. Whilst the delays caused inconvenience and distress to the resident, there was no permanent impact from these as the landlord ultimately responded to the complaint and provided the resident with a new kitchen.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge all complaints within 2 working days. It will provide a full response to a stage one complaint within 10 working days. The landlord will contact the resident if it is unable to keep to this timeframe and agree a deadline, which will not exceed a further 10 working days. The resident can request an escalation to stage two of the complaints process within 28 working days of the landlord’s stage one complaint response. The landlord will provide a full response to all stage two complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 17 June 2022. The landlord logged this on the same day, with the landlord confirming it would provide a full response to the resident within 10 working days. The landlord wrote to the resident again on 30 June 2022 advising that it would provide a full response to the resident by 11 July 2022. It is unclear from the evidence provided if the landlord had contacted the resident to confirm that it needed additional time to review the complaint. This would indicate the landlord had failed to respond to the resident in line with its own policy which may have caused confusion or distress for the resident. This has been considered when looking at compensation, as set out below.
  3. There was further confusion regarding the resident’s stage one complaint being withdrawn, with conflicting information regarding this. The evidence provided does not include a transcript of the conversation between the landlord and resident, so this Service is unable to confirm what had been discussed. The landlord should ensure it is keeping relevant notes when having conversations with residents in order to prevent confusion over this type of issue. While the complaint being closed by the landlord may have caused some delay in the complaint being fully responded to, the evidence provided demonstrates that the landlord had acted reasonably in writing to the resident when closing the complaint, and then reopening it when the resident disputed this. While this may have caused frustration for the resident, the landlord apologised for this confusion and the delay did not impact the final outcome of the complaint.
  4. The landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 3 August 2022. This was 22 working days after the landlord had reopened the resident’s complaint. This falls outside the landlord’s own complaint handling policy, but the delay was not significant.
  5. There was confusion from both the resident and the landlord regarding whether the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. The resident advised the landlord initially that she had not wanted to escalate the complaint to stage two, as she had already received a stage two complaint response from the landlord. The landlord had requested a copy of this from the resident, which the resident did not provide.  On 7 December 2022 the resident confirmed to the landlord that she had not received a stage two response, and requested her complaint be escalated. The landlord logged and acknowledged this complaint on the same day. The landlord should have been aware that it had not already progressed the resident’s complaint to stage two, and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain that to the resident. This also delayed the resident’s ability in progressing the complaint to this Service as she had to wait for the final response from the landlord before the Ombudsman could formally investigate. This was unreasonable and caused further distress and anxiety to the resident.
  6. The landlord provided a full stage two complaint response to the resident on 20 January 2022. This was 20 working days after the complaint was made. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failure and offered the resident £100 compensation for this. The landlord’s complaints policy states that offer of compensation will consider the impact the service failure has had on a complainant and their household. It was appropriate that the landlord had understood there has been delays in the complaint handling process and made offer of compensation in line with its policy.
  7. Overall, there have been clear delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint, which has amounted to service failure from the landlord. The landlord’s offer of compensation is in line with this service’s published remedies guidance, which states compensation of between £50-£100 where there have been failings by the landlord which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident. There was a slight delay in the initial complaint response and some miscommunication regarding what stage the complaint was at. However, this did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its errors in complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s replacement kitchen.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress for its service failure in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint which resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £700 compensation. The compensation is broken down as follows:

(i)     £600 compensation for the landlord’s failure in handling of the replacing of the resident’s kitchen. £100 should be deducted from the total if this had already been paid as part of the landlord’s stage two complaint response.

(ii)   £100 for the landlord’s failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint. This should be deducted from the total compensation if this had already been paid as part of the stage two complaint response.

  1. The landlord must apologise to the resident, in writing, for the delays in dealing with this matter and the impact this may have had on her wellbeing.
  2. The landlord should arrange for a surveyor to return to the property to review any issues with damp and mould returning to the kitchen following the replacement kitchen being installed. The surveyor should also review the resident’s floor. The landlord should carry out any necessary repairs to the floor following this inspection in line with the timescales in its repairs policy.
  3. The landlord is to confirm to this service that it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of this report.