LiveWest Homes Limited (202001701)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001701

LiveWest Homes Limited

12 February 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 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 response to the resident’s reports about:
  1. Historic kitchen works and contractor behaviour
  2. Missed appointments
  3. Loss of hot water and gas
  4. Use of Personal Data
  5. Current kitchen condition

Jurisdiction

  1. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 39(a), 39(e), 39(m) and 39(o) respectively of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’), the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. Historic kitchen works and contractor behaviour
    2. Missed appointments
    3. Loss of hot water and gas
    4. Use of Personal Data
  3. According to the landlord’s records, in 2011 it carried out works to the resident’s kitchen and responded to a complaint from the resident about the kitchen works and contractor behaviour. According to this Service’s records, in 2012 the Housing Ombudsman decided upon the complaint from the resident about the kitchen, making a finding of no maladministration. Paragraph 39(o) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.” In her complaint the resident repeats complaints about the kitchen works and contractor behaviour going back to this period. Where a complaint has already been decided upon, it will not be considered again by the Ombudsman.
  4. In September 2017, the resident complained about kitchen units, boarding and kitchen pipework, which according to the landlord’s contemporaneous logs was closed with the resident’s agreement at stage one of its procedure. From information supplied by the landlord and resident, there is no evidence the landlord was contacted within 12 weeks for the complaint to be escalated further, as required by the landlord’s Complaint Policy at the time.
  5. In 2017 the resident reported missed appointments, which according to the landlord’s contemporaneous logs was responded to as Expressions of Dissatisfaction. From information supplied by the landlord and resident, there is no evidence the issues were escalated beyond Expressions of Dissatisfaction within a reasonable time.
  6. In her complaint, the resident complains about the kitchen condition and missed appointments in 2017 as described above. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.” As the older complaints did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure, this Service will not consider complaints about the kitchen condition before the most current complaint in October 2019, or the complaint about missed appointments in 2017.
  7. Between 23 February 2016 and 4 March 2016 the landlord’s contemporaneous logs report repairs were carried out to the resident’s boiler. The resident complains about being left for a two week period without hot water, which led her to stay with a friend and for which she feels rent is owed. From information supplied by the landlord and resident, there is no evidence a formal complaint was made at the time. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.” Where a complaint has not been brought as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, it will not be considered by the Ombudsman.
  8. The resident complains about the landlord’s handling of personal data, including giving out to contractors a telephone number she had provided, and sending her neighbour a letter addressed to her. Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.” The Information Commissioner’s Office investigates complaints about an organisation’s handling of personal data, and it is not in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about Personal Data.
  9. The complaint about the current kitchen condition is within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and has been considered below.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of an housing association. The property is a one bedroom first floor flat. The tenancy commenced in 1996.
  2. The landlord no longer has a separate repairs policy and refers to its responsibilities under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and tenancy agreement, which confirms its obligation to repair sinks and waste and water pipes. Its previous Repairs Policy, no longer current, specified additional responsibility for fixtures and fittings such as kitchen cabinets.
  3. The government’s Decent Home Standard specifies kitchens are expected to be reasonably modern, 20 years old or less, with adequate space and layout.
  4. The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure and aims to respond at stage one within five working days, and within seven days at stage two. The landlord’s policy does not specify a written response to a complaint is required. Under its earlier policy, it handled initial reports as service requests or Expressions of Dissatisfaction. The landlord considers a complaint outside the scope of its policy if more than 12 months old; if a complainant does not come back within 12 weeks of a response; or if a complaint has already been through the complaints procedure or dealt with by Ombudsman.

Summary of events

  1. On 11 October 2019, the local authority’s Environmental Health department wrote to the landlord following a visit. This raised no issues with the kitchen however included a photo of the kitchen sink base unit, which the resident wished to raise.
  2. On 16 October 2019 the resident complained to the landlord about a number of issues, with dates mentioned referring to 2017 and earlier. The resident complained about kitchen condition; historic contractor behaviour; a period without hot water in 2016; and the landlord giving out a telephone number to contractors in 2017. The resident complained some pipe works were not done as promised; a top unit was not what she had asked for; and a cupboard by the sink was unusable as it was left dirty by contractors. The resident also complained contractors had not admitted to breaking a cupboard door hinge, which she confirmed they fixed; contractors caused a fire; contractors stole items; and contractors urinated outside. According to the landlord’s records, staff including a surveyor visited, reviewed the concerns and the complaint was closed after a verbal response at stage one of its procedure. The landlord notes it informed the resident it would not carry out any work to the kitchen, after its inspection found the kitchen to be of a good standard.
  3. On 5 April 2020 the resident submitted a webform complaint about being without hot water between 19 February 2016 and 4 March 2016; historic kitchen works and contractor behaviour; current kitchen condition; and the landlord giving out a telephone number to contractors in 2017. The resident complained she had been without a kitchen for six years and then the landlord had fitted “another load of crap” that she could not use. On 23 April 2020 the resident submitted a further webform complaint about historic contractor behaviour and current kitchen condition, including the kitchen being unusable and items stolen by contractors that she had met with the landlord about “years ago.”
  4. On 6 May 2020 the landlord issued its final response.
    1. It confirmed it does not consider complaints where twelve months have passed but would provide final conclusions on points raised by the resident.
    2. In regards to current kitchen condition, it noted a new kitchen was fitted in 2017. It confirmed after dissatisfaction was raised with the standard, it attended in October 2019 and found the kitchen to be of a good standard. It advised no further action was considered to be required.
    3. In regards to Personal Data, it acknowledged concerns about usage of telephone numbers and a letter sent to the resident’s neighbour in error. It provided an explanation and apology in relation to these.
    4. In regards to loss of hot water and gas, it advised that as this was not raised at the time in 2016, this fell outside the complaints process and no further action was considered to be required.
    5. In regards to missed appointments, it noted dates mentioned also fell outside of the complaints process. It confirmed £25 was previously issued to the resident in 2017 and that no further action was considered required.
    6. In regards to contractor behaviour, it confirmed the resident brought a complaint to its attention in 2011 and that this was not upheld. It advised that no further action was considered required.
  5. Following the landlord’s final response, the resident reports to the Ombudsman that her kitchen is still not in a good condition and a shelf is falling off and a cupboard is falling apart. She also complains about a damaged communal door and rent account management.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is limited by its Scheme. This includes that the Ombudsman only investigates complaints which have been brought to a landlord as a formal complaint, which have exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, and which are not complaints the Ombudsman has investigated already. The Ombudsman encourages residents to use their landlord’s complaints procedure for each complaint and if they exhaust this they can ask this Service to investigate. If a resident has difficulty progressing a specific complaint, they can contact the Ombudsman and the Service can consider if it needs to intervene.
  2. In light of the above, while events that have led up to the most recent complaint are noted, this Service’s investigation is limited to the complaint about the current kitchen condition and the period up until the landlord’s final response in May 2020. The resident’s complaints following the landlord’s final response are also not considered in this investigation, however the Ombudsman has made a recommendation to the landlord about recent repair requests the resident refers to in her contact with this Service. The Ombudsman has also made a recommendation about the landlord’s lack of a formal repairs policy, that sets out how it prioritises works and target timescales depending on priority and landlord and resident responsibilities.
  3. While not specific about kitchen repair, the tenancy agreement, The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and The Housing Act 1985 confirm responsibility for a landlord to carry out repairs affecting enjoyment of a tenant’s home.
  4. It is not disputed the landlord carried out an inspection in the same month, after the resident’s reports in mid-October 2019 about the kitchen condition, including pipe work not done as promised; a unit not being as requested; and an “unusable” cupboard left dirty by contractors. The prompt visit demonstrates the landlord accepted its responsibility to respond to reports of disrepair and conducted an investigation in a timely manner. According to the report following the landlord’s visit, including by a surveyor, issues including “sawdust” in one of the drawers apparently left by contractor in 2017 and a hole in the shelf under the sink were inspected. It was concluded the kitchen was of a good standard and no work would be carried out. This was appropriate, demonstrating the landlord reached an informed decision about the kitchen, based on a first hand inspection that would have allowed the landlord to review the kitchen condition directly against its obligations.
  5. At this time, taking into consideration that the resident had raised a number of historic complaints as well as concerns about the current condition of the kitchen, it may have been helpful if the landlord had provided a written stage one response. Although the landlord’s Complaints Policy did not require this, in this case this may have helped the resident to understand the landlord’s position on matters at that point. The Ombudsman’s new Complaint Handling Code sets out good practice the Ombudsman now expects to see from landlords, including writing to residents at completion of each stage of the complaints process, to explain the outcome and the reasons for decisions.
  6. Following the resident’s further complaints in April 2020, the landlord’s final response in May 2020 confirmed that following its attendance in October 2019, no further action was considered required. This demonstrates the landlord provided the resident with its final position concerning the current kitchen condition and explained the actions and reasons behind its decision, which was reasonable.
  7. As the final response was provided three weeks after the seven days aimed timeframe in its Complaints Policy, it would have been helpful if there was evidence of communication to the resident between her complaints in April 2020 and the landlord’s final response in May 2020. However, this Service recognises the impact Covid-19 is having on landlords’ resources and there is no evidence of delayed communication and response causing detriment to the resident. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out good practice the Ombudsman now expects to see from landlords in communication with residents, including acknowledging complaints and keeping residents updated and informed, even where there is no new information to provide.
  8. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the current kitchen condition, and decision not to carry out works, is reasonable in the Ombudsman’s opinion.
  9. In this case, as shown by contemporaneous records of the landlord’s visit, the landlord made a decision based on first hand inspection by members of staff including a surveyor, whose opinion the landlord is entitled to rely on.This demonstrates the landlord reached its conclusion in an appropriate way and in accordance with what the Ombudsman would expect to see.
  10. As the landlord’s records advise the works from 2011 include works to “install new kitchen,” it meets the government’s Decent Homes requirement for a kitchen to be ‘reasonably modern.’
  11. Information supplied by the resident has been carefully reviewed, and this Service sees no evidence to contradict the landlord’s decision that the kitchen was of a usable standard, had no issues and required no further action. The resident’s complaints about the kitchen are in the form of call or email reports, and mainly from the landlord’s own records. Evidence of issues is mainly restricted to claims and limited description of issues, apart from a photo of kitchen pipework included in a letter from the local authority’s Environmental Health department. This was raised at the resident’s request rather than as a result of any specific concern and, as explained above, was not considered by the landlord to require further action.
  12. From the resident’s description of issues such as pipe work not done as promised, a unit not being as requested, and a cupboard left dirty by contractors, there is limited evidence of the kitchen being in a sufficient disrepair to require action from the landlord under the tenancy agreement or the law. There was also no concern about the kitchen condition raised by the local authority in their visit in October 2019.
  13. Accordingly, this Service can see no evidence of fault with the landlord’s decision that no further work was required.
  14. Considering all the circumstances of the case, the landlord demonstrates it responded appropriately to the resident’s reports about the current kitchen condition.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the current kitchen condition.

Reasons

  1. The landlord took appropriate action to inspect the kitchen before reaching its conclusion that the kitchen was of a good standard and that it required no further action. There is no evidence to support the resident’s position that works to the kitchen were required.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review the resident’s subsequent reports, that a shelf is falling off and a cupboard is falling apart, and to take any appropriate action.
  2. The landlord to consider having a repairs policy in place, with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs.