Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust (202015579)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015579

Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust

19 November 2021

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

The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports concerning multiple outstanding repair issues at the property prior to April 2021.

b. the resident’s reports concerning multiple outstanding repair issues at the property from 2 April 2021 onwards.

the resident’s request to convert the outhouse into living space.
The resident’s request for reimbursement of the costs of replacing the fitted kitchen and skirting boards.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports concerning multiple outstanding repair issues at the property from 2 April 2021 onwards

The resident wrote a new letter of complaint to the landlord on 11 June 2021. The elements in this complaint included her dissatisfaction with the quality of the completed repair work at her property, that some of the agreed work from the previous complaint remained outstanding, additional work was required and her concern that there were structural issues with the building. She was also dissatisfied with the conduct of operatives and of landlord staff members, and matters relating to rehousing options.
The landlord opened a new complaint about these issues, and a stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 26 August 2021.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.
As issues relating to outstanding repairs have been raised part of a new complaint, the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident. As the new complaint, at the time of the writing of the report, had yet to exhaust the landlord’s internal complaint process, these issues will not be included in the Ombudsman’s current investigation. If the resident remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response to her new complaint, she may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman for a separate investigation.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house. The resident took on the tenancy of the property in June 2018.
The landlord’s repairs policy categories its repairs as “emergency” and “responsive”. An emergency repair is defined as a repair required to “avoid serious danger to health and safety or extensive damage to buildings and property”.
The landlord’s repairs policy does not give timescales for when it will attend to a repair. Standard industry practice would be to attend to an emergency repair within 24 hours and to attend to non-emergency repairs within 30 calendar days.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to acknowledge the complaint within two working days and attempt to reach a resolution with the complainant.
If that is not possible, a formal complaint will be opened, and a response provided to the complainant within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and send a response within 15 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that if it is unable to meet its timescales, it will contact the complainant and agree a revised timeline.
The landlord’s compensation policy states, in part, that it will consider paying a goodwill gesture when there has been evidence of:
1. Poor complaint handling.
2. Unreasonable delays in providing a service e.g., in undertaking a repair.
3. Failure to meet target response times.
4. Failure to follow policy and procedure.
5. Unreasonable time taken to resolve a situation.
The policy’s guidance on payments does not make any suggestions on what level of payment should be considered for delays in providing a service or for stress and inconvenience caused to a resident.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair logs show that between 22 June 2018 and 29 January 2021, the resident made numerous reports to the landlord relating to the condition of the property and outstanding repairs. In response to these reports, the landlord raised work orders and inspections.
On 3 February 2021, the resident called the landlord and requested to raise a formal complaint. The landlord’s notes of the call described the elements of the complaint as:
1. The resident had not been given prior warning of visits by the landlord’s operatives, who either turned up at the property unannounced or only called to inform her of an appointment on their way to the property.
2. This poor communication had caused unnecessary delays in completing the work.
3. Work to replace a mantelpiece had caused damage to wallpaper and the landlord should cover the cost of replacing the wallpaper.
4. Work to the electric fire had caused damage to a wall.
On 4 February 2021 the resident sent photographs to the landlord showing the current condition of the property.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 February 2021. It confirmed that a formal complaint had been opened and that it aimed to provide a response by 22 February 2021.
On 23 February 2021 the landlord and resident spoke on the phone to discuss the outstanding issues the resident wanted the complaint to considered. An internal landlord email described the issues as:
1. Information provided to the local authority by the landlord had affected her banding for rehousing through the local authority’s housing list and as a result she lost the opportunity to move to a different property.
2. The resident paid £385 to have the skirting boards in the property replaced herself and she wanted the landlord to reimburse her for this.
3. The outhouse wall was cracked, and the landlord had only applied a temporary repair. There was also damp and mould in the outhouse. Other properties owned by the landlord have had their outhouse converted to increase living space. This had not been done at the resident’s property.
4. There were loose electrical wires in the outhouse, although it was not clear whether the wires were live.
5. Damage had been caused to wallpaper and plaster when the fireplace was replaced.
6. Due to the poor condition of the fitted kitchen, the resident had arranged a replacement at her own expense. There was a leak in the kitchen pipework. The resident was previously advised that this was condensation, but she disputed this conclusion.
7. The stop tap was rusty and could not be turned.
8. It was not clear that work to repair a leak from the toilet had been successful.
9. There was an ongoing issue with leaks from the radiators in the lounge that had yet to be resolved.
10. The door of the gas meter box did not close. The resident had informed her utility provider, who had explained that it would be the landlord’s responsibility to resolve.
11. There were missing bricks in the property.
12. There were holes in the roof.
13. The shower tap was faulty.
14. The resident had requested compensation from the landlord not completing work within its target times and vouchers to decorate the lounge walls which were damaged during the course of repair work.
The landlord’s internal email also noted that it had arranged an inspection of the property on 24 February 2021.
On 23 February 2021 the resident sent the landlord photographs of condition of the kitchen at the time she took on the tenancy and explained that this was the reason why she bought a new kitchen. She informed the landlord that she had kept the receipts and enquired if she would be able to claim back the costs. The landlord acknowledged the photographs and informed the resident that it had passed them on it its repairs team.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 February 2021 and explained that following the previous day’s inspection, 21 jobs had been identified and that it was in the process of raising the work and arranging appointments. It also confirmed that it would contact the resident the next day to give un update on the status of the complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 February 2021 and inform her that a meeting would be held on 1 March 2021 to discuss the complaint. The landlord wrote again on 1 March 2021 following the meeting and informed the resident that a written complaint response would be provided by 15 March 2021.
the resident contacted the landlord on 9 March 2021 to state her dissatisfaction with how long it was taking for the work to start and for a complaint response to be provided. She noted that although operatives had visited the property since the 24 February 2021 inspection, no work had yet been undertaken. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email and informed her that it had been passed on to the complaints team.
The stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 16 March 2021. The landlord informed the resident that:
1. She had viewed a new property after successfully bidding on it. However, during this time period, the local authority changed the resident’s banding from band B to band D. As the landlord is required to offer properties to suitable applicants starting with the highest band first, the property was offered to a different applicant with a higher banding than the resident.
2. It recognised the disappointment that this decision caused to the resident but informed her that decisions to award or make changes to banding are made by the local authority rather than by the landlord.
3. Following the inspection held on 24 February 2021, the landlord agreed to carry out various repairs including repairs to the doors, bathroom, kitchen tap, radiators, plastering and electrics. The landlord also agreed to provide the resident with a decoration voucher for lounge.
4. it planned to carry out the work in the first week of April 2021. It had decided to postpone some repointing work to the outhouse as there would be issues with the mortar setting during bad weather. The repointing would be completed within three months during summer. Once all the work had been completed, an inspection would be undertaken.
5. It had made the decision not to knock through the outhouse to make it part of the property’s living space.
6. It recognised that the resident had experienced poor communication which had resulted in confusion as to when appointments had been booked. It noted that while the Covid-19 pandemic had been a contributing factor to this issue, it accepted that the service the resident received had not been adequate and apologised for this.
7. It was satisfied that it had provided the complaint response in a timely manner. It remained in contact with the resident since the complaint was raised and explained that due to the complexity of the case that it had extended its response time by an additional ten working days.
8. In recognition of the time taken to complete the repairs, the landlord offered the resident £175 compensation and clarified that this payment would be in addition to the £100 decorating voucher it had already agreed to provide.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 March 2021 and requested an escalation of the complaint. She described the grounds for her request as:
1. Work to repair the fireplace was not listed by the landlord in the repairs schedule.
2. She was not happy to wait until the summer for the repointing work to be completed as there was a hole from the outhouse leading into the house that caused draughts.
3. The landlord refused to refund her the £385 she paid to replace the skirting board as they were “cosmetic”. However, the landlord undertakes cosmetic work itself, such as planting flowers.
4. She disputed the landlord’s decision not to convert the outhouse to living space.
5. She had provided photographs of the condition of the kitchen when she moved in which showed it required replacing. Therefore, the landlord should refund her the costs for this.
6. The £175 compensation offer was inadequate when taking into account the stress and inconvenience caused, the length of time the repairs had remained outstanding, and the damage caused to carpets and wallpaper.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 March 2021 to confirm that the complaint had been escalated and that it would provide a response within 15 working days.
On 26 March 2021 the landlord visited the resident to discuss the outstanding issues and to allow the resident to highlight the work she wanted to be completed as a resolution to the complaint. The landlord then wrote to the resident and confirmed the outstanding issues, based on the discussion during its visit to the property.
The stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 1 April 2021. The landlord informed the resident that:
1. The resident would be able to submit a request to increase the living space as an adaptation due to the size of her family. The landlord provided a copy of its aids and adaptations policy and explained how the resident could submit such a request.
2. Until the issue of whether the outhouse would be converted was resolved, the landlord would suspend the outstanding repairs to this area, as it would not represent good management to repair the outhouse and then undertake a full conversion of it.
3. The kitchen tiles were stained and marked in places but deemed to be functional. Therefore, they would not be replaced.
4. It had agreed to fit a wall mounted fire and make good the surrounds.
5. It would also remove all redundant pipework in the kitchen and repair the boiler storage cupboard.
6. It would undertake an inspection of the fencing to determine whether it required to be repaired or replaced.
7. Once all work had been completed, a senior manager would undertake an inspection of the property and address any outstanding issues raised by the resident.
8. It had undertaken a review of its compensation offer. The compensation was made in recognition of the late delivery of the repairs, and the stress and anxiety that this had caused. The landlord’s view was that a fair and reasonable offer would be £225. The landlord also confirmed that it had made arrangements for the £100 decoration voucher to be delivered immediately.
During a telephone call with this Service on 18 August 2021, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as:
1. Agreed work still remained outstanding.
2. The kitchen tiles should have been replaced.
3. She disputed the landlord’s decision not to convert the outhouse.
4. It was inappropriate of the landlord to make comments relating to the size of her family.
The resident described her desired outcome to the complaint as for all outstanding repairs to be completed and for her costs for the new skirting boards and kitchen to be reimbursed.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports concerning multiple outstanding repair issues at the property up to 1 April 2021

the landlord acknowledged that the resident had received poor service and communication when reporting repairs and that the work had not been completed in an acceptable timeframe. In response to the raised complaint, it undertook an inspection of the property with the resident and agreed to a schedule of work. It also offered £225 compensation and a £100 decorating voucher.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It put things right by identifying all outstanding issues that required repair and informing the resident how the work would be undertaken.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £325 compensation (a payment of £225 and a £100 voucher) This payment was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This suggests a payment of £250 to £750 in cases where considerable service failure or maladministration had been found, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant.
As examples for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs; to respond to antisocial behaviour; to make adequate adjustments”.
The landlord declined to replace the kitchen tiles and informed the resident that although there were some stains and marks on the tiles, they were deemed to be functional. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the recommendations of its appropriately qualified contractors as to when any items are considered serviceable. The landlord would not generally be expected to replace items which are functional, although there may be minor cosmetic damage such as stains and marks.
Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to address what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

The landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request to convert the outhouse into living space

Section 2 of the tenancy agreement describes the obligations of the landlord. This states that the landlord is responsible for the repair of the structure and exterior of the property, the repair of installations and common parts, and the external decoration of the property. The landlord is under no obligation to agree to convert the outhouse as that work is not covered in its responsibilities as set out in section 2.
When the landlord visited the resident on 26 March 2021, it noted that it was informed by the resident that she wanted the conversation of the outhouse to provide more living the space for her family. In the stage two response, the landlord advised the resident how she could make a request for the conversion as part of its aids and adaptations policy.
The resident informed this Service that she felt that the landlord’s comments relating to the size of her family were inappropriate.
Following the 26 March 2021 meeting, the landlord sent an email to the resident summarising the outstanding issues. Part of this summary states “you would like the outhouse to be converted into a useable living space due to the size of your family and the needs of you children”. The landlord then asked the resident if it had missed anything. No evidence has been provided that the resident replied to this email.
It was therefore reasonable of the landlord to suggest to the resident in its stage two response to inform the resident that she could submit an application to request the conversation of the outhouse and an adaptation to provide additional space for her family. The landlord would not be expected to convert the outhouse, solely due to the resident’s preference and it would only be expected to do so if there was a genuine need for this to be done, such as to provide more space based on the size of her family. The landlord would not be obliged to convert the outhouse because it had done so for other properties as there may be specific reasons why it was necessary in the case of those properties. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to reference the size of the resident’s household as a reason why she could apply to have the outhouse converted.
For the reasons set out above, there is no evidence of service failure in the landlord’s decision to decline the resident request to convert the outhouse.
It was also reasonable for the landlord to delay repairs to the outhouse on the basis that these may need to be done again if the outhouse was converted, which would not be an appropriate use of the landlord’s limited resources.

The landlord’s decision not to reimburse the resident the costs of replacing the kitchen and the skirting boards

Section 5 of the tenancy agreement concerns rights for an assured tenant. Section 5.3 relates to the right to make improvements. This, in part, states that an assured tenant:
1. “May make improvements, alterations and additions to your home and additions to, or alterations in, our installations, fixtures and fittings, provided you have first obtained our written consent and all other necessary approvals.”
Section 5.3 relates to compensation for improvements. This, in part, states that an assured tenant:
1. “Has the right to claim compensation for certain qualifying improvements, for which you have had our prior permission and which you have made to your home after a certain date. You can only apply for compensation when your tenancy ends. We will give you full details of the scheme and the qualifying improvements upon request.”
The landlord was under no obligation to provide reimbursement during the time of the complaint as no evidence had been provided to show that the resident had been given written permission in advance to replace the kitchen or that the landlord was given the opportunity to inspect the existing kitchen to determine whether it could be repaired rather than replaced prior to the replacement. If the landlord had agreed, following an inspection that the kitchen required replacement it would have had the opportunity to carry out this work itself which may have been less expensive than the cost of the resident arranging the work.
As part of her complaint, the resident has provided photographs of the kitchen before it was replaced. The Ombudsman is limited in the extent to which it can rely on photographic evidence as it is not possible for this Service to determine the location/circumstances of the photographs, or the validity of the images themselves. As a result, whist we assess all information provided to us by both sides, we do not generally place significant reliance on photographs in reaching our decisions. It would not be possible for the Ombudsman to establish from photographs alone, whether the kitchen needed to be replaced or if it could have been repaired instead. Also, as explained above if the kitchen did need to be replaced, the landlord may have been able to replace it at a lower cost. Therefore, the landlord would not be expected to reimburse the resident for the cost of the kitchen.
It is not in dispute that the replacement of the skirting boards was undertaken by the resident as an improvement, in line with the tenancy agreement. Consequently, the landlord would not be expected to consider reimbursement of this work until the end of the resident’s tenancy. At the end of her tenancy, the resident may be able to claim compensation towards the cost of the skirting boards and she should contact the landlord to discuss this at that time if she wishes to pursue this option.
Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord for its decision to refuse the resident’s request to refund her costs for replacing the kitchen and skirting boards.
However, it is recommended that the landlord writes to the resident and provides her the with all the necessary information on how it operates its compensation for improvements scheme.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it handled the resident’s reports concerning multiple outstanding repair issues at the property up to 1 April 2021, which satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to:
1. Decline the resident’s request to convert the outhouse into living space.
2. Not to reimburse the resident the costs of replacing the kitchen and the skirting boards

Reasons

The landlord recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident by its failures to properly respond to her reports of required repairs and the distress that this had caused to her. The landlord apologised and awarded compensation proportionate to the effect of these failures on the resident.
As per the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord was under no obligation to agree to convert the outhouse and it was reasonable for it to explain how the resident could apply to have this work done. As part of this explanation, it was appropriate for the landlord to refer to the size of the resident’s family as this would need to form the basis of her request for the outhouse to be converted.
The landlord acted in line with its repairs policy and the tenancy agreement when it declined the resident’s request to reimburse the costs of replacing the kitchen and skirting boards. The landlord is not obliged to consider compensation for improvements until the end of a tenancy, but it should consider the claim for the skirting boards at that point, in line with the tenancy agreement. The landlord would not be expected to compensate the resident for the cost of the kitchen at the end of the tenancy as there is no evidence that the resident sought permission from the landlord before installing the new kitchen.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord writes to the resident and provides her the with all the necessary information on how it operates its compensation for improvements scheme.