Hyde Housing Association Limited (202006592)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006592

Hyde Housing Association Limited

5 October 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 refers to the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s request for a replacement kitchen.
2. The repairs needed to the resident’s kitchen.
3. The resident’s concern that the landlord had authorised ‘illegal’ repairs to the kitchen.
4. The associated complaint.

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, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The resident’s concern that the landlord had authorised ‘illegal’ repairs to the kitchen.

Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states:
1. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
As part of her complaint to this Service, the resident has raised concern that the landlord had authorised ‘illegal’ repairs to her kitchen. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 24 March 2021. The evidence confirms that this issue did not form part of the original complaint to the landlord and this concern did not become apparent until 30 June 2021 when the resident said a contractor advised her that the scheduled works were illegal. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had been informed that the works were illegal at the time they were scheduled.
This is not something this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this issue before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. In view of the resident’s dissatisfaction, the landlord should review the scheduled repairs and contact the resident to confirm its position. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she may wish to raise a separate complaint through the landlord’s internal complaints process. She may be able to refer this new complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

Background and summary of events

The resident became a tenant of the landlord through a mutual exchange. The property is a house. The kitchen of the property was installed by the previous tenants of the property.
The evidence provided suggests that the resident initially raised concerns about the layout of her kitchen and various repair issues to the landlord in October 2018. She advised that several repairs had been completed in the past but these were found to be temporary and the repair issues were regularly reoccurring.
The resident advised that she raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 20 July 2020, however, a copy of this correspondence has not been sent to the Ombudsman for review.
The landlord’s records show that it discussed the resident’s kitchen internally on 25 August 2020. A previous inspection of the kitchen had taken place and the contractor had advised that the kitchen was serviceable. It was agreed that the kitchen should be repaired at this stage.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 September 2020 and attached photos of the area around her sink which she felt was unhygienic. She said she had been told by a member of the landlord’s staff previously that the kitchen needed to be replaced. She said she had been told that a joint visit with two surveyors would take place but this had not been actioned. She asked the landlord to respond regarding the joint visit.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 1 October 2020 to chase a response regarding the surveyors’ visit.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 12 October 2020 as she had previously raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of the repairs to her kitchen on 20 July 2020 but had not received a response. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on the same day and asked it to contact the resident and provide a response in line with the timescales laid out in its complaints policy. The landlord responded on the same day and said this would be actioned.
Following contact from the resident, who stated that she had not received a response, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord again on 11 November 2020 and asked it to provide a complaint response within five working days.
The landlord sent a complaint acknowledgement letter to the resident on 26 November 2020 following a phone call and noted that the resident had advised her kitchen needed replacing as it was not in a good condition. She explained that the cupboard doors were unstable and the worktop was chipped which she found to be unhygienic. She had also reported that the cupboards were not fully secured to the wall. The landlord noted that she expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s communication and said that she had to chase it for responses. It acknowledged that the resident wanted her kitchen to be renewed completely. The landlord confirmed that it would provide a response by 16 December 2020.
A surveyor attended the resident’s property on 16 December 2020 and completed an inspection of the kitchen. They noted that there was damage to the worktops, the unit doors needed overhauling and adjusting and there was no heat detector in the kitchen. The surveyor said that they had offered to raise these repairs for the resident but she had declined as she said she wanted a new kitchen. The surveyor explained the kitchen renewal process to the resident and said that they would need to send a form for approval. If the application was rejected, the repairs would need to be raised. The resident agreed to this.
The landlord completed a component renewal form on 16 December 2020 for approval to renew the resident’s kitchen. This was rejected on 17 December 2020 and it was recommended that repairs were undertaken to maintain the life expectancy of the kitchen by a further five years.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 22 December 2020 and explained the following:
1. It confirmed that a surveyor had attended the property on 16 December 2020 and advised that repairs could be completed to the kitchen, but the resident had said that she did not want these repairs to be done. It explained that it could not install a new kitchen unless the kitchen was beyond economical repair.
2. It apologised that it did not have information about the condition of the resident’s kitchen prior to the visit on 16 December 2020 and explained that this was because it only had repair logs of the work that had previously been completed. It confirmed that it had now completed the assessment and sent the application for a new kitchen to the relevant team. It confirmed that it would arrange for the repairs to be completed if this was suggested following the outcome of the application.
3. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding its communication and that she did not know whether it was dealing with the repairs as no one had previously attended the property to check the issues. It apologised for its lack of communication and its poor customer service.
4. It confirmed that the resident’s complaint would be reviewed internally to ensure that it learnt from her complaint to enhance the service it provided. It added that if the resident was dissatisfied with its complaint response, she could escalate her complaint further.
The landlord emailed the resident on 23 December 2020 and confirmed that several repair works would take place in the new year. These included renewing the worktops, overhauling the kitchen units and adjusting the doors, securing the panel between the cooker and fridge back onto the wall and renewing the heat detector. The resident responded that day and asked the landlord to query the plastic covering on the cupboard doors and kitchen units and advise on whether this was a fire risk or health hazard.
On 4 January 2021, the resident repeated her query regarding the plastic coverings on the cupboard doors. The landlord responded on 6 January 2021 and advised that it had spoken to the surveyor. It said that no tests had been done so it had no specific details to provide regarding the safety of the plastic covering. It added that the previous tenant had completed this work, not the landlord. It explained that as the resident had taken on the property via mutual exchange, she had taken on responsibility for improvements made by the previous tenant, including the kitchen. Therefore, she would need to carry out the removal of the plastic covering herself.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 23 February 2021 for the following reasons:
1. She said that her fridge had broken down on 7 February 2021 and it had not been very old. A new fridge was delivered on 19 February 2021 and the company had advised her that the position of the fridge (next to the cooker) would cause the fridge to overheat, meaning it would need to work harder to keep the internal parts cool. She asked why the position of her fridge was not acknowledged by previous surveyors in response to her earlier complaints.
2. She added that when the fridge was replaced, she was able to see that the previous tenants had made the piece separating the cooker and fridge themselves with two pieces of cupboard and had never attached this to the wall. She added that the fridge door got caught on the radiator in its current position. She said that the fridge should not be in the position it currently was in.
3. She acknowledged that she had taken on the property via mutual exchange, but she did not know of the changes made by the previous tenant or that they had tampered with the kitchen. She did not find the landlord’s response regarding the plastic covering on the cupboards and units to be satisfactory and felt that if she tried to remove the coverings herself it would cause more issues as the cupboards were already fragile. She was concerned that if she pulled the covering off the cupboard that was not securely attached to the wall it could fall. She felt that the landlord should be responsible for this as the issue was now six years old.
The landlord’s records show that it called the resident on 8 March 2021 to discuss her complaint further. It then sent an acknowledgement letter the following day. It noted the resident’s further request that her kitchen was replaced and her concerns about the position of her fridge. It confirmed that it had escalated her complaint to stage two of its internal process and would provide a response by 5 April 2021.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 24 March 2021 and explained the following:
1. It confirmed that it would not be looking to replace the resident’s kitchen as it had been found to be in a serviceable state.
2. It explained that in line with its policy, it would not replace items unless they were beyond economical repair. It said that if the resident wished for the repairs to go ahead she should let it know so that the appointments could be scheduled.
3. With regard to the position of the fridge, the landlord had offered to remove a cupboard so that the fridge could be placed elsewhere in the kitchen, it noted that this would mean that the resident would have less storage space.
4. With regard to the plastic covering on the cupboard doors and units, the landlord repeated that the resident was welcome to remove this herself as the landlord was not responsible for the covering.
The resident responded on 30 March 2021 and said that the repairs had been agreed but she was waiting for a date for these to commence. She said that she was told the works would go ahead after the Covid-19 pandemic but had not heard anything since. The landlord responded the following day and said that the resident should expect to be contacted by the end of the following week so that works could be arranged.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 April 2021 as she had not heard anything regarding the repairs. The landlord responded on the same day and said it would pass the message on to make sure that the repairs were arranged. The landlord’s internal records show that repair work orders were raised that day. The repairs were scheduled for 30 June 2021.
The landlord’s records show that it received an email from its contractors on 30 June 2021 which said that the works requested could not be completed as what was being asked was illegal and the contractor would not put his name to the work. It was noted that the worktops could not be fitted as other elements of the kitchen needed changing first. The resident called the Ombudsman on the same day to advise that she now had kitchen cupboards all over her house and that the work had not been completed as scheduled.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained dissatisfied because the repair works had been scheduled but had not been completed. She expressed concern that the landlord had approved the kitchen repair works and had continually refused to replace her kitchen. As a resolution to the complaint, she asked for £2000 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the unorganised illegal repairs and a new kitchen. She said that she no longer wanted any of the previous surveyors to visit her property again.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s decision not to replace the resident’s kitchen.

Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the fixtures and fittings within the property. This would usually include the kitchen. However, in the kitchen was fitted by a former tenant and was not fitted by the landlord. The landlord would not be responsible for maintaining fittings installed by tenants as the tenants would be expected to maintain these items. As part of the mutual exchange process, the resident took on responsibility for maintaining items which were fitted by the tenant she was exchanging with. Therefore, the resident would be expected to maintain parts of the kitchen that were installed by the previous tenant.
The resident has advised that due to the poor condition of her kitchen it should be replaced. She also said that she had been told previously by the landlord’s staff members that it should be replaced. The Decent Homes Standard sets the statutory minimum fitness standard for housing. It states that a property must have reasonably modern facilities, including a reasonably modern kitchen which should be 20 years old or less. This is guidance and it is important to note that a landlord would not necessarily be obliged to replace a kitchen if it was over 20 years old but in a reasonable condition. In this case there is no evidence to suggest that the resident’s kitchen was over 20 years old and in need of a full replacement on the basis of its age.
The landlord took reasonable steps to inspect the kitchen and sought advice from its staff to determine whether the kitchen should be replaced. It determined that the kitchen was serviceable and recommended that repairs were completed to extend the lifespan of the kitchen by five years. Ultimately, the landlord has relied on the findings of its staff and contractors, who deemed that the kitchen was not yet in a condition that warranted a full replacement. The landlord was entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors, and accordingly the decision to not install a new kitchen was reasonable in the circumstances.
Social landlords have limited resources and to be fair to all tenants and manage their resources effectively, landlords are expected to schedule upgrades and major repairs. It is often more economical to run these upgrades as part of a program than to individually pick properties to be upgraded on an ad hoc basis. The landlord would not be expected to replace the resident’s kitchen outside of its planned schedule unless it was beyond economic repair. Given that the individual application for a replacement kitchen had been rejected, it would have been helpful for the landlord to provide further information about its planned programme of works to manage the resident’s expectations about when her kitchen was likely to be replaced in the future. However, this did not significantly change the outcome of the resident’s complaint because as explained above, the landlord was entitled to decline to replace the kitchen in the near future.

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

The landlord’s repair policy states that it has separate categories for different repairs. Emergency repairs, including repairs which threaten health, safety or security should be made safe within 24 hours. Non-urgent repairs should be attended to within 20 working days. The landlord has confirmed that it would be responsible for repairs needed to the resident’s kitchen.
In her complaint communication, the resident also raised concern about the plastic coating on her kitchen units which had been installed by the previous tenants. The landlord acted reasonably by advising the resident that she could remove the coverings if she wished. The landlord would not be obliged to remove this for the resident as the resident had accepted the property as part of a mutual exchange and the landlord had not placed this covering on the kitchen units. It was also reasonable for the landlord to say that it could remove a cupboard so that the resident could move her fridge if she wished.
Despite internally agreeing on 25 August 2020 that repairs should be undertaken to the kitchen rather than a renewal, there was a delay in completing a survey of the kitchen to determine what works were needed until 16 December 2020. Following this it was reasonable for there to be some delay as the landlord was waiting for a response regarding the renewal application and the resident had asked for repairs to be put on hold until a response was received. However, a response was received on 17 December 2020. As such it would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange the repair works at that time or explain why it could not do so, to manage the resident’s expectations.
There was a significant delay in the works being completed between August 2020 when the landlord internally agreed that repairs should be completed and 30 June 2021 where the repairs were started, but not completed. Whilst there may have been some delay during this period due to the impact of Covid-19 which would have been outside of the landlord’s control, this does not account for the entirety of the delay. Furthermore, the landlord would have been expected to provide regular updates to the resident regarding the status of the repairs if they were delayed and has not demonstrated that it did so. The resident needed to follow-up on multiple occasions for the works to be arranged, which is also likely to have caused inconvenience to her.
The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide information about the current status of the repair works on 30 September 2021. The landlord responded but failed to provide any relevant information about the outstanding repair issues. As such, it is unclear as to whether the resident is still awaiting kitchen repairs or whether this matter has now been resolved. As explained above, the Ombudsman cannot currently consider the resident’s specific concerns about the works being put on hold in June 2021. However, we have considered the delays up until this date as well as the lack of evidence to confirm that the repairs have now been completed.
In summary, there has been maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs needed to the resident’s kitchen due to the significant delay in completing repair works and its lack of communication regarding the delays. The landlord has not demonstrated that it had adequately communicated with the resident during this time and there is no evidence to suggest that the works have now been completed. In view of this, the landlord should offer compensation to the resident, as detailed below, for the inconvenience caused by the significant delay and its lack of communication. If the works have not yet been completed, the landlord should contact the resident within four weeks to confirm the next steps regarding the repairs. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s position, she may wish to raise a separate complaint about this through the landlord’s internal complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a two-stage complaints procedure. When a resident raises a complaint, this should be acknowledged within two working days and a stage one complaint response should be issued within ten working days. Following this, if the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process. At stage two, the landlord should provide a complaint response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
The resident has advised that she originally raised a complaint with the landlord in July 2020. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s testimony, but we have not been provided with any evidence to confirm this. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 12 October 2020 and asked it to provide a stage one complaint response to the resident within ten working days. A further request was sent on 11 November 2020 as the resident had not received a response. The landlord’s stage one response was sent on 22 December 2020, which was 51 working days since the Ombudsman’s initial request. The landlord has not acknowledged or apologised for this delay in its complaint responses despite being given the opportunity to do so. There is also no evidence to suggest that the landlord managed the resident’s expectations by advising her of the reasons for any delay and providing revised timescales. Furthermore, the landlord was aware that the application for a kitchen renewal had been rejected at the time of its complaint response on 22 December 2020 and had the opportunity to provide the correct advice to the resident at this stage regarding the next steps.
The resident escalated her complaint on 21 February 2021 and received a response on 24 March 2021. This response was issued slightly outside of the landlord’s timescales at stage two by two working days, but this was not a significant delay
There has been maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint. The landlord has not acknowledged the delayed response despite being given the opportunity to do so in its stage one and two complaint responses. This delay is likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident. In view of this, the landlord should compensate the resident, as set out below. It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training to ensure that complaints are handled in line with its policy timescales and residents are updated where there is likely to be a delay.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision not to replace the resident’s kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs needed to the resident’s kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff and contractors who determined that the resident’s kitchen was not in need of a full replacement. Its decision not to replace the kitchen was therefore reasonable.
There was a significant delay in arranging the repair works to the resident’s kitchen and the landlord has not communicated effectively with the resident during this time. to date, there is no evidence to confirm that the repair works have gone ahead and have now been completed.
There was a delay in issuing a stage one complaint response to the resident which necessitated in an unreasonable level of involvement by both the resident and the Ombudsman. The landlord has not acknowledged or apologised for this delay in its complaint responses.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions take place within four weeks:
1. The landlord is to pay the resident £500, comprised of:
  1. £300 in recognition of the delays in completing repair work to the resident’s kitchen and its poor communication.
  2. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused because of its poor complaint handling.
2. If the repair works have not yet been completed, the landlord should contact the resident within four weeks to confirm the next steps regarding the repairs.

If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s position, she may wish to raise a separate complaint about the recent delays through the landlord’s complaints process.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training to ensure that complaints are handled in line with its policy timescales and residents are updated where there is likely to be a delay.