Derby City Council (202124724)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124724

Derby City Council

8 February 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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of repairs needed to the resident’s kitchen cupboards.
   2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, and lives in a three-bedroom house. She moved into the property in 2019.
3. In June 2019, the resident reported a problem with the kitchen cupboard doors (laminate fronts peeling away). The landlord decided not to investigate further as it thought it was a cosmetic issue. In September 2020, the resident again raised concerns about the cupboard doors. The landlord agreed to replace the cupboard door fronts.
4. Replacement materials arrived in October 2020, but were damaged and so had to be returned to the supplier. The landlord was then informed that its supplier had discontinued that particular kitchen range, and it informed the resident of this.
5. The landlord then advised the resident that it would carry out the repairs on 3 December 2020. This appointment was then cancelled, and rearranged for 6 January 2021. This appointment was also cancelled, and rearranged for 18 January 2021. This appointment was cancelled and the resident was told the landlord’s supplier did not have the materials in stock. 
6. On 26 March 2021 the resident complained to the landlord about the time it was taking to replace the cupboard doors. She also said no one had turned up to two of the appointments that had been made. The resident explained that her cupboards were falling apart and coming away from the carcasses. She made it clear that she was not asking for a new kitchen, but thought the landlord had not dealt with the repair in a timely manner.
7. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 13 July 2021. It said the supplier had gone into administration and its new supplier’s doors did not fit the carcasses. It said it was looking for a company who could manufacture the correct size doors, but this was taking some time. The landlord credited £50 to the resident’s rent account for the missed appointments.
8. On 2 August 2021 the resident escalated the complaint to the second stage of the process. She said she had been trying to get the kitchen repaired since 2019, and had been let down constantly by the landlord.
9. The landlord issued its stage two response on 31 August 2021. It apologised for the delay in finding a resolution. The landlord confirmed that it had a new arrangement with a manufacturer who could provide replacement doors. It said there was a lead in time of approximately six weeks after ordering, and that the resident’s home would be the first in an initial batch of ten homes. The landlord advised that it would send a surveyor to the resident’s home in the week commencing 6 September 2021 to take measurements and confirm the colour match. It said this information would then be sent to the manufacturer.
10. The resident advised the landlord on 16 September 2021 that the supervisor had not visited to take measurements, as the landlord had advised in its stage two response. The supervisor then apparently attended but did so when the resident was not home. The resident contacted the landlord about this, as she said she had not been told of the appointment, and so could not show the supervisor what needed to be ordered.
11. The resident brought her complaint to this Service, and as of April 2022 the kitchen doors had still not been repaired. The resident advised that she had been told by the landlord in November 2021 that the doors were being manufactured, but she did not think this made sense as she had not chosen the style or colour.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs needed to the resident’s kitchen cupboards.

12. In the interests of achieving a resolution to this case, this investigation has considered some events that occurred following the completion of the complaint under investigation. Specifically, the landlord’s actions to complete the unresolved kitchen repair works that it had acknowledged remained outstanding at the time of the complaint. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution process as this Service expects landlords to follow through on agreements made during its complaints process.
13. The landlord’s repairs policy explains that for non-urgent/routine repairs (repairs which do not require immediate action) it aims to complete these within five weeks. Though it may sometimes take up to 12 weeks if specialist materials need to be ordered.
14. The landlord was initially made aware of the issue with the kitchen cupboards in June 2019. Its notes state that a supervisor was needed to inspect them, as the facings to all cupboard doors were peeling off, and it was thought the doors had not been manufactured properly. Despite this, the supervisor made the decision not to attend as it was thought the issue was cosmetic only and the cupboards were still working.
15. The landlord missed an opportunity here to address the problem promptly. If it had done so, the doors might have been ordered and replaced without unnecessary delay. By the landlord not taking action at this time,  the resident continued to experience problems with the kitchen cupboards for at least another two years. This was significantly outside the 12-week timescale given in the landlord’s repairs policy.
16. Once the landlord had accepted responsibility for replacing the door fronts in September 2020, it ordered replacements. The replacements were damaged and so could not be used. The landlord was then made aware that its supplier had discontinued the kitchen range, and also advised the resident of this. Despite this, the landlord then made three repair appointments with the resident in December 2020 and January 2021. The resident was understandably confused by this, as she had understood the doors could not be replaced by that supplier.
17. The landlord has accepted that it did not make the resident aware that two of those appointments had been cancelled. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will pay £10 for each missed appointment, yet the landlord chose to pay more than this. The landlord has therefore taken appropriate steps to put right the missed appointments and demonstrated a resolution focused approach. However, this does not take into account the confusion caused to the resident due to the conflicting information she was given by the landlord regarding whether or not the doors could be replaced.
18. There was also nearly a year’s delay between October 2020 when the landlord became aware that its supplier could not provide replacement doors, and August 2021 when the landlord found another manufacturer who could replace the doors.
19. It is appreciated some of these events were outside the landlord’s control (the initial supplier going into administration, and the second supplier not being able to supply the correct doors). Nonetheless, given that all of the resident’s kitchen cupboard doors were affected, the landlord ought to have taken other steps to carry out the repair, even if this meant arranging for another kitchen manufacturer or a joiner to replace the doors.
20. It is also noted that the resident often had to call the landlord for an update, as she was not kept informed about what was happening with the repair.
21. The landlord advised the resident in its stage two complaint response that the surveyor would attend in early September 2021 to take measurements, but that appointment was also missed as the landlord forgot to instruct its surveyor to attend.
22. It is not known if the surveyor did later attend, as there is conflicting information about this. The resident said that the surveyor attended in her absence as she was not told of the appointment, but the landlord said it was not aware of the appointment. However, given that the resident was then advised in November 2021 that the doors were in the process of being manufactured, it would seem likely that the surveyor had attended at some point to take measurements and colour match the existing units.
23. The landlord also advised the resident in the stage two response that there would be a six-week lead-in after the order had been placed. However, this timeframe was not kept as the doors had still not been replaced as of April 2022. This caused the resident further unnecessary inconvenience and confusion.
24. The landlord’s notes on the file state the only resolution would be to renew the kitchen. The notes also said that an appointment had been made for 16 May 2022 to carry out a survey and allow the resident to make her choices, with expected installation to take place in July 2022.
25. It is not known if the kitchen has now been repaired or renewed and the Ombudsman has made an order concerning this below. 
26. The landlord had the opportunity during its complaints process to address its service failure by compensating the resident for the delays and inconvenience she had experienced. However, it did not do so, even though it is apparent from the landlord’s file that it accepted its communication had fallen below expected standards, and that it had failed to proactively communicate with the resident.
27. The landlord should pay the resident £500 compensation to recognise the impact its errors have had, particularly the significant length of time the resident had to wait for the repair. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which says that up to £500 should be paid for a succession of service failures and/or where the problem is not resolved within a reasonable timescale.
28. The landlord should also pay an additional £10 for the missed surveyor appointment for the week commencing 6 September 2021.
29. The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation will be paid as a rent credit unless exceptional circumstances apply. However, this Service’s remedies guidance makes it clear that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and the resident. The landlord should therefore pay the compensation directly to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

30. There was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling as:
    1. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response 77 working days after the resident complained and 67 working days outside the 10 working day response time set out in its complaints procedure.
    2. Although the landlord proposed in it is email to the resident on 13 April 2021 that it leave the complaint open for a further two weeks before responding, it still did not provide its response for another 65 working days. 

Determination

31. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs needed to the resident’s kitchen cupboards.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

32. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £660 total compensation, made up as follows:
    1. £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of its handling of the repairs needs to the kitchen.
    2. £10 compensation for the missed surveyor’s appointment.
    3. £150 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
33. If the landlord has still not carried out the work required to the kitchen, within four weeks of the date of this report it should contact the resident setting out details of the works to be completed, together with the likely timeframe for completion.
34. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to conduct a management review of this case and provide this Service with a summary of the review. The review should identify what improvements can be made in the following areas:
    1. Its communication with residents concerning outstanding repairs.
    2. Progressing surveyor recommendations in a timely manner.
    3. Completing actions agreed during its complaints process.
35. The landlord should provide this Service with proof of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.