Bristol City Council (202000545)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000545

Bristol City Council

15 December 2020

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 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a sub-standard kitchen replacement.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The complainant (Resident) is a Secure Tenant and has been for a number of years.

The property is an end of terrace house.

Legal and policy framework

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obligated to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises, except where the tenant or persons living with the tenant or the tenant’s visitors have caused disrepair by failing to use the property in a reasonable manner.

Once the landlord has been informed of repairs that are needed, the tenant must allow a reasonable time for the work to be done, and liability only arises once the reasonable time has elapsed from the date the notice was served. The length of time will depend on the scale of the work and the effect the disrepair is having. The landlord will not be in breach of its repairing obligation until this time has elapsed.

Complaints Policy

The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s complaints policy. This details the landlord’s two stage complaints process and indicates that:
1. At stage one, the complaint will be acknowledged within three working days and responded to within 15 working days.
2. At stage two if the resident is still dissatisfied the complaint will be acknowledged within three working days and a response will be provided within 20 working days.

Summary of events

On 6 December 2018 the landlord undertook a planned kitchen replacement. This was completed on 18 December 2018.

On 2 January 2019 the resident sent the landlord a series of pictures showing several issues she had identified with the works that had been completed. Damage to her washing machine was also noted.

On 15 January 2019 the landlord’s surveyor met with the resident. It noted that the following list of works had been agreed:
1. “Refit all wall units tight to the tile line so to reduce and tidy up the junction between the tiles and wall units. Refit wall units with end panels both sides of the cooker gap, insuring units are level as discussed on site.
2. Replace damaged filler panel to wall unit, caulk in filler panel to base unit with colour matched silicone.
3. Whilst wall units are off, make good and tidy up the void areas in the corners sealing tops of the tiles.
4. Replace damaged wall units as discussed.
5. Lift floor tile in W/M gap and refit with end panel bracket fitted on top of the tile.
6. Plaster section of wall between back door and cupboard architrave, resident to redecorate with own paint.
7. Heating pipes to be re-clipped and straightened up so are consistent with the architrave, making good as required.
8. Fill hole in with sand and cement where fan was removed”.

On 17 January 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord and explained that while the landlord was in the process of putting things right, there was still the outstanding issue of the damage to her washing machine. She explained that she was displeased with this as she had mentioned very early on that the washing machine had only been a few months old. She stated that she was advised that this would be fine.

The resident was advised by the landlord to register her complaint with its contractor. The landlord stated that it would consider the complaint if she remained dissatisfied with the contractor’s response.

On 28 February 2019 the landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident following an investigation of her claim. It acknowledged that there had been damage to the resident’s washing machine however stated that as it was minor, there was no evidence to suggest that it was not there before the works had begun or that it was indeed sustained during the works. The contractor offered its pre-work disclaimer which the resident had allegedly signed, and which explained that it would not accept responsibility for any damage to items after they had been moved. The Ombudsman has not seen this document. The contractor did, however, make an offer of £100 as a good will gesture.

On the same day, the resident responded. She asserted that there had been no damage before the works had begun. She explained that she had trusted that her property would be well protected and was disappointed it had not been.

The Ombudsman can see from the landlord’s internal emails that the resident’s dissatisfaction was shared with the landlord later on 28 February 2019.

On 27 March 2019 the landlord provided its stage one response. The landlord noted that on receipt of the complaint, a surveyor was instructed to meet with the resident to inspect the items of concern. The several items (as noted on 15 January 2019) were documented for repair.

The landlord explained that following the resident’s meeting with its surveyor, it had been informed that the kitchen had been completed and that the list of works identified had been rectified to the resident’s satisfaction. The landlord noted however that the resident’s journey from start to finish had not been in keeping with the service it sought to provide. An apology was offered for this. In recognition of the outstanding issue regarding damage to the resident’s washing machine, the landlord noted that its contractor had made an offer of £100. The landlord explained that it would not consider a like for like replacement but the offer of £100 was still open for the resident to consider.

On 28 March 2019 the resident noted that there was still outstanding works to be done. Photo evidence was provided.

On 6 April 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord. In response to the landlord’s stage one correspondence, she expressed that there had been a history of failed works (which she listed), and explained that the following was still outstanding:
1. Poorly fitted and damaged kitchen units.
2. An issue with her heating pipes which she had attempted to resolve herself but could not cover the cost of.
3. The dent in the washing machine where a foot was used to put the washing machine back and finger indents. Upon pulling the washing machine out, it was discovered that the tiles behind were also broken and the floor uneven.

The resident stated that she was extremely displeased and now faced several costs to repair the damage caused by the contractors. She stated that £100 towards the washing machine would not even cover the call out charge. She asserted that the contractors had shortened the lifespan of the washing machine.

On 29 April 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord and expressed her disappointment that almost 4 months had passed since her kitchen had been completed and she was still waiting on matters to be resolved.

On 1 May 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident. It apologised that there had been a lack of response and confirmed that the resident’s complaint was now at stage two. The Corporate complaints team would respond in due course.

On 2 July 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident. The landlord explained that in order for it to recommend a remedy, it wished to know more details on the washing machine that had been damaged (e.g. make and model number, age and price) and any pictures available.

On 3 July 2019 the resident provided these details. She additionally reiterated that she still had problems with her kitchen units and requested to know who would deal with this.

The Ombudsman can see from the landlord’s internal emails that the landlord was able to find the resident’s washing machine online at a cost of £330.

On 24 July 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord and explained that she had not heard back about her complaint. She requested an update on her damaged washing machine and on who would sort out the issue raised with her kitchen cupboards.

The resident followed this up with an email on 21 August 2019. She expressed that the least the landlord could do was provide an update.

On 1 October 2019 the landlord provided the resident with its final response. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding (which it explained was partly due to the contractors going into administration) and noted that it had inspected the resident’s property and discussed the outstanding works with the resident. It was confirmed that a number of items needed to be rectified and £100 had been offered in respect of the damage caused to the washing machine.

The landlord had now reconsidered this as the resident was unhappy with the offer of redress as well as elements of the kitchen. The landlord confirmed that upon review, it would uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord noted that whilst its previous contractor had stopped trading, it was responsible for ensuring a good standard of work. It would therefore organise any further work required to the kitchen to bring it to the expected standard.

The landlord also noted that the previous contractor had accepted liability for the washing machine and so should have offered an appropriate remedy. The contractor had however gone into administration. As such and taking into account the value to replace the model in question, the landlord agreed to compensate the resident £250 in respect of the damage caused. A further £100 would be offered for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.

The landlord (and the resident) has since informed the Ombudsman Service that the provider of the resident’s kitchen units undertook an inspection of the units in January 2020. While the landlord has noted that the provider did not consider there to be a product issue, the resident has asserted that the provider agreed that this would be replaced. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of the providers inspection or any subsequent communications.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a sub-standard kitchen replacement.

As per the obligations detailed in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, where a request for repair is made (which the landlord is responsible for), the landlord should take action within a reasonable time to address the issue. The landlord was therefore obligated to act promptly to assess (and where necessary, address) the resident’s reports of defects / poor workmanship following the planned kitchen replacement. The Ombudsman has been unable to identify when the resident first brought the issues to the landlord’s attention but has seen several images which were provided to the landlord on 2 January 2019. This was inspected by the landlord’s surveyor on 15 January 2019 and a number of items were confirmed for repair. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was appropriate. The Ombudsman notes that rectification work was undertaken before the landlord’s stage one response on 27 March 2019.

Following this, however, the Ombudsman can see that on 6 April 2019, the resident indicated that there were repairs outstanding. While the landlord did, in its final response, acknowledge this and agree to organise any further work required to bring the resident’s property to the expected standard, the landlord’s response was unreasonably delayed. The Ombudsman can see that the resident made several attempts to obtain a response from the landlord in July and August 2019 in relation to her kitchen cupboards in particular. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of this being acknowledged, however. The Ombudsman is therefore dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the resident’s further reports. In the Ombudsman’s view, this resulted in a delay in acknowledging the outstanding items and introducing a reasonable solution.

As well as organizing for the outstanding works to be undertaken, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have used its stage two response as an opportunity to acknowledge its delay in [repair and/or inspection] action. The Ombudsman notes that an offer of compensation was made for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing her complaint, but no offer of compensation was made for the landlord’s delay in taking steps to address the resident’s reports of outstanding works. This was unreasonable.

In relation to the resident’s washing machine, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s offer of compensation and has concluded that this was proportionate and fair. From the images and the details provided by the resident (finger print indents and a foot indent), in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was reasonable and proportionate for the landlord to offer a sufficient amount to fix the damage, but not to replace the item. This is as the damage was cosmetic and no evidence was provided to suggest that the washing machine had stopped working. The Ombudsman has seen from the landlord’s internal emails that the landlord was able to locate the price for the exact model owned by the resident and made an offer of compensation which amounted to more than half of the cost of the item. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while this was not offered until the landlord’s final response, this was appropriate.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Due to the lack evidence provided, the Ombudsman has been unable to identify when the resident first made her complaint. The Ombudsman notes however that within the landlord’s stage one response, it explained that it had immediately instructed its surveyor to meet with the resident following her complaint. The Ombudsman has therefore been able to infer that the resident’s complaint was registered with the landlord prior to 15 January 2019. As per the landlord’s complaints procedure, this should have been acknowledged within three working days and responded to within 15 working days. The Ombudsman cannot see that this was done, however.

The Ombudsman recognises, from the resident’s correspondence on 17 January 2019, that the landlord had begun taking steps to address the issues raised, and this was appropriate. Still, a formal complaint response should have been issued within good time. The Ombudsman can see that the resident’s further dissatisfaction was shared with the landlord (by its contractors) on 28 February 2019 and still no complaint response was offered until 27 March 2019. This was inappropriate.

Similarly, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord unreasonably delayed its complaint response at stage two of its process. The Ombudsman can see that following the landlord’s stage one response, the resident expressed further discontent on 6 April 2019. This should have been acknowledged within three working days however the Ombudsman cannot see that there was any communication with the resident until 1 May 2019, after being prompted by the resident. This was inappropriate. What’s more, as per the landlord’s complaints policy, the landlord’s stage two response should have been provided within 20 working days however the landlord failed to respond until the 1st of October 2019. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the length of time which the landlord had allowed to elapse was unreasonable. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s submission that it was partly delayed by its contractor going into administration, however in the Ombudsman’s view, a response still could have been provided within good time and a reasonable level of communication maintained.

While there were several issues with the landlord’s handling of the complaint, the Ombudsman is content that the landlord recognised this within its stage two response and made an offer of redress to recognise the time and trouble spent chasing the complaint. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s award was reasonable and proportionate. The Ombudsman is content that the level of redress satisfactorily recognised the residents experience.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a sub-standard kitchen replacement.

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the landlord offered reasonable redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this element of the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determination as:
1. The landlord unreasonably delayed in responding to the resident’s reports of outstanding work. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord proposed to address this in its final response, however in the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord allowed a significant amount of time to elapse first. This was inappropriate. The landlord made fair offers of redress to account for the time spent chasing the complaint and the resident’s washing machine, however, did not adequately recognise its delay in taking steps to address the resident’s repair request.
2. The landlord failed to appropriately implement its complaints policy and the timeframes set out within this. This subsequently resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord for a response and delayed the resident in bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman Service for an independent investigation. The Ombudsman is content, however, that the landlord recognised this in its final response and made an offer of redress which satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In recognition of the landlord’s service failure in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a sub-standard kitchen replacement, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award £150.

The landlord should, if it has not already, honour its proposal to organise any further work required to the kitchen to bring it to the expected standard (as set out in its stage two response). The landlord should contact the resident to discuss the outstanding issues and agree its next steps in writing. The landlord should also update the resident on its position (or the provider’s) on the kitchen cupboards. If, contrary to the resident’s assertion, the kitchen cupboards have been adequately inspected and deemed appropriate, this should be communicated to the resident.

The landlord should comply with the above orders and honour the compensation amount already offered (if it has not already) within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that accurate and continuous records are kept for both repair works undertaken and resident complaints. Upon reviewing the evidence provided to this Service, the Ombudsman has been unable to identify records such as the resident’s initial complaint (although requested). The landlord should therefore reflect on this and ensure that an adequate audit trail is maintained in future cases to evidence the initial issue and the steps taken in response.

The landlord should ensure that it honours the turnaround times detailed in its complaints process to avoid an unreasonable delay in offering the complainants resolution. The landlord may benefit from reviewing the Complaint Handling Code recently published on the Housing Ombudsman website.