Charnwood Borough Council (202308618)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308618

Charnwood Borough Council

26 June 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 the installation of a new kitchen.
2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She moved into the property by way of mutual exchange on 2 December 2013. The resident is a full-time carer for her husband and autistic daughter who also has ADHD.
4. In April 2023 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint as she was dissatisfied with the delays in the commencement of the works to install her new kitchen.  The works had been cancelled twice since January 2023 with very little notice.  When the works did begin on 29 March 2023. On the first day 2 of the landlord’s contractors demolished the kitchen within 2 hours. There had been no further works since apart from a few new sockets. She had vulnerable family members and no kitchen or means to cook.
5. The landlord responded. It said that the delays were due in part to having to ensure that an asbestos survey report was in place. This had to be reviewed before works could begin. The first date was moved because of this. The second date of 13 February was further delayed and works commenced on 29 March 2023. Stages of the kitchen install should have been relayed to the resident by its contractor’s representative. It apologised that it had not met its standard. It apologised and provided a timescale for the remaining works to be completed.
6. In April 2023 the resident asked for the matter to be escalated to stage 2. She disagreed that the delay was because of the asbestos report as several had been done recently. The delay was because the kitchen had not been delivered. She had had no washing machine or cooker since February as she had unplumbed and moved them out to get the works done. The communication had been poor.
7. The communication with the landlord’s contractor had got worse. The timescales provided had not been adhered to. Appointments have been missed. Contractors had arrived unannounced. She had been left with no running water for 4 days. The contractors had also failed to put floor coverings down to protect the flooring. Her appliances had also been damaged.
8. The landlord agreed and upheld that there had been unnecessary delays and poor communication. In respect of floor coverings, it would have expected its surveyors to have raised this during its inspection reports. The inspection photos do not confirm or refute this either. In respect of damage to her items it understood that these were cosmetic rather than functional. It offered £1515 redress. This was broken down as follows:
   1. £1200 for distress and inconvenience.
   2. £215 for loss of amenity 10% of rent for the period 10 February to 14 July 2023.
   3. £100 good will for the advised damage to the cooker and dishwasher as it is unable to determine this matter conclusively either way.

Post complaint.

9. In December 2023 the landlord completed a review of the compensation. It increased the total level to £2260.77. It said that this was to reflect the entire period the kitchen was either partially or wholly compromised because of its condition or outstanding works. This also included the extended period snags had been outstanding for.
10. It said the expected start date should have been 4 May 2021 as the base for loss of facility. The period end date the kitchen was substantially complete and in use following the works albeit with some defects still present was 23 May 2023. The period for calculation for 10% rent reduction was therefore 4 May 2021 to 23 May 2023. (amount due £860.77). The landlord also increased the compensation for distress and inconvenience to £1400. It said compensation for white goods was under review.
11. The records show that there was some disagreement about the snagging works required. The final snagging works were signed off in May 2024.

Assessment and findings

12. The Decent Homes Standard, a standard for social housing introduced by the UK government, advises that properties should have reasonably modern facilities such as kitchens, bathrooms, and windows. The landlord’s obligations therefore include repair or replacement of old components where this is considered required. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine at what point such modernisations are required, as this Service considers that the landlord, its staff, and contractors are best qualified to determine whether components are still functional and fit for purpose and when repairs or replacement are required.
13. The evidence shows that it was a management decision to put the resident’s kitchen replacement into the landlord’s planned works for 2020/21.  However, the landlord wrote to the resident on or around February 2021 and advised that it was unable to confirm a start date due to backlogs from covid. The landlord said in its correspondence that the kitchen works should have commenced in May 2021.  In October 2022 the notes state that the works were never completed by its previous contractor and should be carried forwards onto the next available kitchen program when the new contractor was in place.
14. The replacement kitchen works were then programmed to start in January 2023. The delay in the commencement of the works in January 2023 was what led to the resident raising a formal complaint in April 2023. It is acknowledged that the landlord has considered historic delays when it revisited the complaint later in December 2023 which it is in its discretion to do. This Service will however only be assessing the landlord’s handling of the installation of the kitchen from January 2023 onwards in accordance with the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s formal complaint responses.
15. The landlord explained that it had failed to appropriately plan the works.  The first delay had been because it had not obtained the appropriate asbestos report. It said it could not be certain what caused the second delay. This was a failing as it should have had the relevant records to ensure that it could explain what went wrong. That it did not means that it was not monitoring the works appropriately.
16. The landlord acknowledged within its stage 1 response that the initial delay of 3 months could have been avoided if it had appropriately planned the works. It acknowledged that its timing and lack of explanation or apology was not acceptable. This was a reasonable response in the circumstances.
17. However, the resident had explained that her household was vulnerable and that she had had no means to cook. The landlord should have therefore considered whether compensation was appropriate given the failings it had identified.  This was a missed opportunity to put matters right at an earlier stage. The landlord set out a schedule of works within its stage 1 response which it failed to adhere to. This was part of the resident’s request for a stage 2 escalation. 
18. The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractors had missed appointments. On other occasions it attended with no notice.  There were days where no works were being completed.  The evidence does not show that the landlord kept the resident informed of the schedule of works as it had not adhered to the schedule it provided in its stage 1. The resident had had to spend time chasing up what was happening and had to live with the uncertainty of when she would be able to use her kitchen again. This was unreasonable and shows that the landlord was not monitoring the works.
19. It is unclear when the kitchen works were completed.  The evidence shows that an inspection report was completed on 23 May 2023. This showed that the kitchen had been installed and the appliances were reinstated. This means that the resident had use of the kitchen from this point. Snagging works were however still required. On 8 June 2023 another inspection was completed. The records refer to this as being a handover inspection.  The inspection outcome said it was a fail and it listed 16 recommendations of snagging works to be completed.
20. A further inspection of the snagging was completed on 4 August 2023. The report said that the new radiator had burnt the skirting slightly. The pipe boxing cover required renewing. Grouting was still required in areas and the sparkle clean was outstanding.
21. On 11 August 2023 the landlord issued it stage 2 response. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged that there had been delays, poor communication, missed appointments, and incorrect job schedules provided. The landlord correctly sought to put matters right. The compensation it offered was broken down to include the loss of use of the kitchen and it applied a 10% reduction of the rent.  This was appropriate.  The landlord said the period for loss of amenity was from February 2023 until 14 July 2023. It is unclear why this date had been chosen as the landlord did not explain.  However, the period covered 22 weeks for loss of amenity which is approximately 5 months. This was an appropriate amount of time given the findings in this investigation. The evidence showed that the resident had use of her kitchen again in May 2023 albeit snags were still to be confirmed.
22. The landlord also applied the Housing Ombudsman’s remedy guidance when it considered the impact caused.  This was appropriate and showed that the landlord had listened and was trying to put matters right. Overall, the landlord took into account the factors listed above, including duration, frequency, the resident’s circumstances and cumulative impact. Therefore, this investigation considers that its formulation of the remedy was reasonable. As such, a finding of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.
23. The award of compensation is separate from any claim which the resident may make for damage to her personal possessions. In this case the resident was claiming her flooring, dishwasher and cooker had been damaged. The landlord explained within its stage 2 response that it was unable to confirm or refute the claims made.  It offered £100 as a good will payment as it considered the damage was cosmetic.
24. While the landlord’s explanation in its stage 2 response was not unreasonable it cannot rely on the fact that its contractor had gone into administration to not fully investigate a claim.  The landlord should refer any claims for damage to possessions to its insurer. This Service has made a recommendation in respect of this below.
25. It is acknowledged that the landlord later revisited its offer of compensation. While we welcome the landlord recognising the need to revisit the complaint. The landlord did not revisit its offer of compensation until 4 months after its final complaint response.  Furthermore, it used its discretion to consider backdating the period for loss of amenity to cover historical delays which did not form part of this complaint. This is not of course unreasonable and within the landlord’s discretion to do so. It showed that it was still trying to put matters right.
26. The landlord also increased the amount for distress and inconvenience to cover the delays in the snagging works and the fact that some were still outstanding. This means that this Service does not consider it an offer of compensation made as part of the complaint. The subsequent increased offer made was for the detriment caused outside of the internal complaint period. 

Complaint handling.

27. The landlord’s complaints policy gives ten working days for a stage one complaint response, and 20 working days for a stage two response. In this case, the stage one response took 11 working days. This was slightly outside of its own timescales but not unreasonable.
28. The stage 1 complaint response offered an apology but lacked learning. The comments that the concerns would be raised with the contractor did not show a meaningful assessment of how the failings had occurred. It was also silent on what it would do to prevent similar happening again. There was no consideration as to what it could do to put matters right. This was a further shortcoming in its handling of the issue. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising concerns about the landlord’s handling of the installation of the kitchen, without receiving a detailed response. It was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to put matters right at an earlier stage.
29. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response took 76 working days for the landlord to provide a response.  The evidence shows that the landlord did keep the resident informed regarding some of the delays, but it had not kept in touch with her regularly during this period.  This was not in accordance with the timescales in its complaint policy. This was a failing in its handling of the complaint. 
30. The stage 2 response did however go some way to putting the failings right. The landlord set out what had happened. It considered that redress was appropriate to put matters right.  Its explanation of how it had broken down the compensation showed that it had listened to the resident and considered how its failings had impacted her.  
31. Its learning outcomes however were vague. It said that it should complete pre-work surveys and communicate delays to its residents. These outcomes explained what action it would take but did not explain how. The focus of the learning was placed on improvement of its contractor rather than focus on how it monitored the works as a landlord and how it communicated with its resident’s. An order has been made below for the landlord to review this case. This will give the landlord an opportunity to consider how its learning outcomes can be achieved.
32. This Service considers the above complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. The response at stage 1 demonstrated a lack of investigation and curiosity. It failed to put things right, consider redress or show any learning. At stage 2 of the complaint there was a failure to respond within timescales of the complaint which caused a delay of 76 working days.  However, the landlord’s stage 2 response did evidence that it had investigated the issues and sought to put matters right. It failed to show how it would prevent these matters happening again. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the installation of a new kitchen.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

35. The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £150 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Recommendation

36. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident £2260.77 compensation broken down as follows:
    1. £1515 compensation if not already paid as offered in the landlord’s stage 2 response. 
    2. £745.77 which is the additional compensation it offered in December 2023.  If it has not done so already.
37. It is recommended that the landlord write to the resident to inform her how she can make a claim to its insurance company for damage to her personal belongings.