Crawley Borough Council (202012035)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012035

Crawley Borough Council

26 May 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

  1. The resident has complained that the landlord has offered insufficient compensation in response to their complaint about the works to their kitchen and bathroom.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been assessed in this report.

Background

  1. The landlord replaced the kitchen and bathroom at the property in October/November 2020. Some snagging works remained outstanding as of May 2021.
  2. The resident complained about the time taken to complete the works, and the quality of the works, while they were ongoing.
  3. Ultimately the landlord dismissed the subcontractor responsible for the works (after the resident had also explained they would not allow them back in their home). The landlord also offered £200 in compensation to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience of the poor quality and overdue works.
  4. The resident has explained that this compensation is inadequate as: they had to take 3 weeks of leave; the works affected their partner’s mental health; the works left the cooker potentially unsafe; the overall inconvenience of chasing the landlord about the works was not resolved by the offer.

Summary

  1. The works began on 6 October 2020. The works were to install a new kitchen and to replace the wetroom with a bathroom. They were planned to take 3 weeks.
  2. The resident submitted their formal complaint on 13 October 2020. They were unhappy with the time the works were taking; the mess that the contractors left each day; the quality of the works; and the impact the works had on their lives. In particular they highlighted:
    1. No one came on Thursday 8 October despite works being due that afternoon.
    2. The heating and hot water were turned off on Friday 9 October and not returned until Sunday. From the landlord’s internal emails the contractor was not aware of the out of hours service to arrange the required repair, and this was left for the landlord to arrange once the issue was re-raised on the Sunday.
    3. Part of the kitchen ceiling fell in during work on Friday 9 October. Different accounts state that either the resident was left to tidy this up, or they offered to tidy it up.
  3. The landlord and contractor agreed to extend the response time for the formal complaint until 7 December on the basis that the repair situation needed to be progressed before a full response could be given.
  4. The contractor arranged a site meeting with the subcontractor responsible on 12 October. The subcontractor agreed to improve how it cleaned up each day. The works were then due to finish on 16 October (bathroom) and 20 October (kitchen).
  5. The contractor’s email to the landlord about the progress of the works explained:
    1. The subcontractor’s performance did not improve.
    2. The subcontractor was removed from all projects on 3 November 2020 due to various performance issues.
    3. The contractor took on the works itself and restarted on 5 November. They were then completed on 26 November (excluding snagging repairs).
    4. During this time the contractor: removed and refitted all the units and worktops installed in the kitchen by the subcontractor; refill and paint ceiling due to poor quality plastering; replace flooring; tile the kitchen; filled and painted other poor quality areas of work to thew walls, ceilings and units.
    5. In the bathroom the contractor also had to: Remove tiling and repair wall behind before retiling; fit basin that had been left; reposition shower; fix toilet leak; repair flooring and lay floor tiles; replace boxing-in; and reseal the bath.
  6. The contractor sent the stage 1 response on behalf of the landlord on 4 December 2020.
    1. The contractor apologised for the standard of work at their home.
    2. It also apologised for the delays and communication.
    3. That some delay was the result of having to find new operatives to take over the work, further complicated by the ongoing Covid restrictions.
    4. The contractor apologised that it was unaware of the out of hours service that led to the delayed heating and hot water repair.
    5. That it understood most of the works were complete.
  7. The resident escalated the complaint on 7 December.
    1. They repeated how their partner suffered from depression, and had their medication increased during the time of the works.
    2. They explained that they had to take 3 weeks emergency leave as they were advised not to leave their partner alone.
    3. They complained that the contractor (and as such the landlord) had ‘destroyed’ their home and had put their lives at risk as the cooker was wired incorrectly by someone who was not an electrician.
    4. They highlighted: damage to the flooring in the hallways; sharp edges left on the floor; a damaged fridge; and that the works lasted 8 instead of 3 weeks.
  8. The landlord’s final response was sent on 17 December.
    1. The landlord decided not to respond to the complaints about electrical and flooring works as these had not been responded to by the contractor (which managed the stage 1 responses).
    2. The landlord repeated its apology for the quality of the works and the delays. It also confirmed that this had led to the subcontractor being dismissed.
    3. The landlord agreed with the resident’s description that the works were due to last 3 weeks but had taken 8. It agreed it was a ‘significant overrun’ and offered £200 to acknowledge the ‘poor service.’
  9. In a more recent (May 2021) update the landlord has explained that some snagging repairs were only due to be completed on 7 May 2021. It explained there had been previous cancelled appointments, and the most recent was cancelled because as the resident was ‘going out.’

Assessment

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy states:

“Where there has been a clear service failure and the tenant has been inconvenienced or disadvantaged as a result. The standard amount being £25 per incident but this can be varied if the inconvenience or disadvantage is more serious.”

  1. The Housing Ombudsman Service Guidance on Remedies states:

“Awards of £50 to £250 – Remedies in the range of these amounts may be used for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant. We recognise that there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant.

Awards of £250 to £700 – Remedies in the range of these amounts may be for cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant.

Awards of £700 and above – Remedies in the range of these amounts are used in recognition of maladministration / severe maladministration that has had a severe long-term impact on the complainant. Remedies in this range will be appropriate when there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both.”

  1. A complicating factor in this case is that a number of issues raised in the landlord’s and resident’s discussion about compensation cannot be included in this assessment.
    1. The resident has explained that their partner’s mental health issues were significantly affected by the handling of the works. The landlord accepted the impact such significant works to key areas (bathroom and kitchen) of the home would have on family life. However any assessment of compensation for health issues is outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman Service. Equally we would not expect the landlord to offer compensation in response to claims about a complaints impact on someone’s health. This assessment would require a determination of liability that can only be provided by the courts following a personal injury claim.
    2. The resident has also explained that the works (and the impact on their partner’s health) meant they had to take emergency leave from work. The tenancy agreements sets out that residents must provide reasonable access for works. In this case it is agreed the works took too long and so the need for access was unreasonable, as such compensation for the inconvenience was needed. However this compensation would not be expected to cover lost earnings due to leave from work. As above, a claim for lost earnings requires an assessment of liability that only the courts could determine following legal action. The Housing Ombudsman Service’s role is limited to considering the general inconvenience. Therefore the request for the compensation to be increased to cover this emergency time off work is outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman Service.
    3. The landlord has explained that some of the main areas of concern about the works (damage caused during the works to the fridge and flooring; electrical safety) were not included in this case. As such it would respond to them separately. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that any distress of inconvenience caused by the work in terms of these issues would be responded to in the separate complaint. As such they have not been assumed to have been included in the landlord’s £200 offer as part of this assessment. However the landlord’s decision to separate the issues in this way has been addressed below.
  2. It is agreed by both parties that the works were of very poor quality and that the project significantly overran. The dispute focuses around the amount of compensation offered by the landlord for these failures.
  3. The first priority for a landlord when responding to a complaint is to resolve the substantive issue. In this case the landlord (or the contractor that was acting on the landlord’s behalf) arranged the site meeting after the first week of works and the initial complaint. It raised the various concerns about the time that the project was taking, as well as the quality of the works and the mess left each day. There weas some agreement from the resident and contractor that the subcontractor’s performance initially improved.
  4. However the subcontractor’s performance ultimately remained inadequate. This led to the landlord dismissing the subcontractor and arranging for their main contractor to complete the works. The resident has disputed that the landlord took this action and explained it was the resident that asked the subcontractor to leave and not come back.
  5. Both of these explanations are accurate however. The resident did ask the subcontractor to leave as they have described. However while the resident may refuse entry to the subcontractor, only the landlord can dismiss the subcontractor from the project given the contractual arrangements that will be in place. When taking such significant action this can open the landlord to potential legal action from the dismissed party and so is a significant step.
  6. Given the consistent nature of the failures it was appropriate for the landlord to take this action. The dismissal, together with the final works which included a significant amount of re-work, demonstrates the landlord was looking to put the matter right. This is one of the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
  7. Once the issue was addressed it was reasonable for the resident to request compensation given the distress and inconvenience that both parties agree the resident experienced. It was poor complaint handling at stage 1 response for it not to proactively make an offer of redress, and for this issue to need a follow up request from the resident and the stage 2 response.
  8. The redress would be expected to cover:
    1. The inconvenience of the 5–week overrun of the project timeframe.
    2. The inconvenience of having to repeatedly report poor quality works to the landlord.
    3. The distress of the general poor quality of the works and customer service (such as the lack of tidying after each day).
    4. The loss of heating and hot water.
  9. As noted above, the resident has explained they believe the landlord should offer further redress for damage to flooring, fridge and due to the danger caused when a wire was burnt due to an incorrectly installed cooker. The landlord has already confirmed it will respond to these issues separately (and therefore presumably with a further offer of redress if it is considered appropriate). If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to these parts of the complaint then they will be able to bring them as a separate case to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
  10. Based on the landlord’s policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s guidance above, the landlord’s offer of £200 for the issues listed above is considered a reasonable offer of redress. While it is clear the works had a significant impact on the life of the resident and their family, it is also noted that the landlord took what action it could once it was aware of the poor service.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has decided to separate the complaint on the basis some of the specific issues with the works were not raised at stage 1 by the resident.
  2. This approach has complicated and extended the efforts to resolve this dispute. The resident could not include the concerns about the cooker or flooring in the stage 1 complaint as they had not occurred then. However the overall focus in both the resident’s complaints was on the general performance of the subcontractor (and therefore the processes in place at the landlord given it is responsible for the subcontractor).
  3. Landlords have the discretion to add issues into a later stage response if relevant and appropriate. In this case it would have been beneficial for the landlord to provide an overall response (and as part of that an overall offer of redress) in response to the entire handling of the kitchen and bathroom works. It could have included any issues that had arisen between the stage 1 complaint and the stage 2 response as further symptoms of that overall issue that needed responding to.
  4. It may be that the complaint procedure’s structure where the contractor responds at stage 1, and the landlord at stage 2, influenced which issues it would respond to. Ie the landlord may have wanted the contractor to respond to any issues it hadn’t already at stage 1. However ultimately the complaint is against the landlord and it is for it to try and resolve the dispute as early as possible (as set out in the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code). Separating a complaint about the handling of a single repair project into multiple complaints does not encourage the early resolution of complaints.
  5. Therefore there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This has resulted in the further inconvenience of the resident having to pursue a separate complaint that has not been addressed in the landlord’s original offer of compensation.

Determination (decision)

  1. I can confirm in accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Service scheme there has already been a satisfactory offer of redress in response to the October 2020 complaint about the works to the kitchen and bathroom.
  2. I can confirm in accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Service Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.

Reasons

  1. The compensation already offered is in line with the Housing Ombudsman Guidance on Remedies. The additional factors raised by the resident are either outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman Service, or have been referred to a separate complaint by the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s decision to separate the complaint based on when different issues were raised, despite all relating to the handling of the kitchen/bathroom works, has prolonged the efforts to resolve the resident’s concerns.

Orders

  1. As a result of the determination above I have ordered that within 4 weeks the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident an additional £100 to acknowledge the inconvenience of extending the time they will have to spend pursuing the complaint through its complaint procedure.