Mansfield District Council (202322775)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322775

Mansfield District Council

29 August 2024

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 is about the landlord’s handling of kitchen alterations at the resident’s home.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
2. Knowledge and information management relating to this case.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. He lives in a 3 bedroom house. The landlord is a council which owns and manages the resident’s home.
Around 31 October 2022, the landlord carried out alterations to the resident’s kitchen. The alterations included rewiring and changing the position of some kitchen units. The changes resulted in the resident’s cooker being positioned close to electrical sockets.
On 6 June 2023, the landlord’s electrician visited to carry out a non-related repair. The electrician felt that the cooker was too close to the sockets and blanked them off to prevent them being used.
The landlord’s contractor returned on 6 July 2023 to alter the layout of the kitchen to move the cooker away from the electrical sockets. The electrical sockets were reinstated the same day.
At some point, the resident made a formal complaint. We have not seen any records of his initial complaint, the landlord’s stage 1 response or the resident’s escalation request.
On 26 September 2023, the landlord gave its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint which said:
1. It had installed a new kitchen in November 2022.
2. It did not agree that its contractor had installed his cooker in an “unsafe” position.
3. The contractor had installed the kitchen according to the agreed design plan.
4. There were no signs that the cooker had been fitted incorrectly and later moved.
5. It would be helpful if he could provide more information or evidence.
6. It was sorry for the time it had taken to respond.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaint process

The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 3 October 2023. He said he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his concerns about the cooker position. He wanted the landlord to take responsibility for its mistake and to give compensation.
The resident told us that a new kitchen had been installed in May 2024 and that no further work was outstanding.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 August 2024 apologising for “the treatment” he had received and offering compensation of £250.

Assessment and findings

Handling of kitchen alterations at the resident’s home

The matter in dispute is whether the alterations the landlord made to the resident’s kitchen resulted in his cooker being repositioned in an “unsafe” place. The resident believes that the cooker position was unsafe because it meant the hob was too close to electrical sockets. The landlord’s position is that the kitchen was installed in line with the design drawings it had agreed with its contractor.
The matter of whether the cooker was later moved was also disputed when the resident brought his complaint to us. The resident said that the layout was altered to move the cooker further away from the sockets. The landlord’s position during its complaint process was that the layout had not been changed.
However, during our investigation, the landlord confirmed that the layout had been changed to move the cooker away from the sockets in July 2023.
The landlord had raised an order for the resident’s kitchen to be replaced on 6 October 2022. The accompanying design drawings, dated 8 September 2022, showed the intended layout of the kitchen. We observed that none of the design drawings showed the locations of electrical points.
There is no statutory requirement for a specific distance between electrical points and a hob. Industry guidance is that there should ideally be a distance of 300mm but recognises this may not be possible in small kitchens. The institution of engineering and technology’s (IET) guide to building regulations, published in 2022, recommended there should be a distance of at least 100mm between a hob and an electrical socket.
Photographs provided to us by the resident appear to show that the kitchen had been installed in line with the design drawings initially. However, the photographs were not date stamped so we do not know when they were taken. It was not possible for us to determine how close the electrical points were to the cooker hob from the photographs provided.
The landlord provided us with an electrical installation certificate dated 31 October 2022. It showed that the kitchen wiring and cooker circuit had been upgraded and tested. The certificate was completed by a registered electrician who had recorded that the installations were compliant with relevant regulations. The landlord was entitled to rely on this as assurance that the electrics complied with regulatory requirements at the time.
Given the certification by a registered electrician, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the cooker position was “unsafe and illegal” as the resident believes.
We have seen no evidence to suggest that either the resident or the landlord were concerned about the distance between the hob and the electrical points initially.
When the landlord’s own electrician visited on 6 June 2023, his professional opinion was that the cooker hob was too close to the electrical sockets. It was appropriate that the electrician blanked off the sockets to prevent them being used. While we recognise that this would have been inconvenient for the resident, it was an appropriate response to the concerns the electrician had.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractor returned to alter the kitchen layout on 6 July 2023 and that the sockets were reinstated the same day. Given the safety risks had been managed, this was a reasonable timescale for such repairs.
A photograph taken by the landlord’s electrician on 6 July 2023 show that a base unit had been moved from the left side of the cooker space to the right of it. This had the effect of increasing the distance between the electrical sockets and the cooker space and, as such, had resolved the issue.
Overall, the landlord’s response to the issue of the cooker position was reasonable from 6 June 2023 when it became aware of a problem. However, there was some inconvenience to the resident who could not use the sockets for a month and had to experience further disruption while the kitchen layout was altered.
The inconvenience and disruption may have been avoided if the landlord had considered the location of the electrical points during the design of the kitchen. It should do so in future.
The landlord’s failings amount to service failure in its handling of the kitchen alterations.

Handling of the resident’s associated complaint

The complaints policy that the landlord sent to us for this investigation was effective from April 2024. It did not send us the version that was in place at the time of the resident’s complaint.
As a member of the Scheme, the landlord is required to follow the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). We have assessed the landlord’s complaint handling in this case against the Code published in March 2022.
The Code required the landlord to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It required it to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. The Code also required the landlord to address all points raised in a complaint and give reasons for its decisions in its responses.
In this case the landlord was unable to provide us with details of the resident’s initial complaint or a copy of its stage 1 response. As such, the landlord has not demonstrated that it met the requirements of the Code when handling the resident’s complaint at stage 1.
Similarly, the landlord was unable to provide us with details of the resident’s escalation request. As such, we cannot conclude that the landlord’s stage 2 response of 26 September 2023 was given within the required timescale or addressed the points the resident had raised.
It is not clear why the landlord’s stage 2 response said that there was no evidence that the resident’s cooker had been moved. By the time of this response, its contractor had altered the kitchen layout to move the cooker away from the sockets and its electrician had reinstated the sockets.
The landlord’s failure to mention those events suggests that its investigation at stage 2 had been inadequate. The landlord’s investigation should have revealed that the cooker position had been moved on 6 July 2023.
Further, it was not reasonable that the landlord asked the resident for further information or evidence in its response. It should have asked him for this during its investigation if it felt it was needed.
Overall, the landlord has not demonstrated that it met the requirements of the Code in handling the resident’s complaint. Its failings amount to maladministration.
After we had started our investigation, the landlord wrote to the resident on 9 August 2024 to apologise and offer £250 compensation. We acknowledge the landlord’s desire to put things right for the resident but it should have done so through its complaint process. We noted that the landlord’s letter made it clear to the resident that its compensation offer would not influence our investigation.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.
The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the statutory Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements of the Code are not being met.
In this investigation we found failures in complaint handling. The landlord should consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management relating to this case

In May 2023, the Ombudsman published a spotlight report on knowledge and information management. Our report highlighted how inadequate creation, storage and use of information impedes a landlord’s ability to provide good quality services and to resolve complaints. It gave 21 recommendations to embed a culture of effective knowledge and information management for landlord’s to consider.
In this case, the landlord was not able to provide us with basic information we requested. For example, it told us that it could not provide details of the resident’s initial complaint, a copy of its stage 1 response letter or details of the resident’s escalation request. Nor could it evidence that it had offered compensation to the resident as it had told us in its evidence submission of 19 January 2024.
Similarly, the landlord did not initially provide us with complete information about its handling of the kitchen alterations at the resident’s home.
The landlord told us on 9 August 2024 that the officers that had dealt with the resident’s case had since retired. It had reviewed the information held on its computer system and was able to provide some additional information regarding dates it had attended the resident’s home and work it had done.
The landlord’s explanation and inability to provide relevant evidence suggests that it does not have effective knowledge and information management procedures in place. If it did, it would have had records of the actions taken by its former staff members and copies of the correspondence they had dealt with.
The landlord’s failings in its knowledge and information management of this case amount to maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of kitchen alterations at the resident’s home.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
2. Knowledge and information management relating to this case.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. Write to the resident to acknowledge that its contractor had altered the kitchen layout in July 2023 to move his cooker further away from the electrical sockets. The landlord must apologise for not acknowledging this sooner. It must provide us with a copy of its letter.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £400. The landlord may deduct the £250 compensation it offered on 9 August 2024 if it can evidence that it has already paid this. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation is comprised of:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the kitchen alterations.
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. Assess itself against the recommendations in our knowledge and information spotlight report. The landlord must provide us with a copy of its self-assessment including details of the actions it will take to improve its approach and the timescales for making the changes needed.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Considers the location of electrical points when designing kitchen layouts in future.
2. Considers the complaint handling failings identified in this report when reviewing its policy and practices against the statutory Code.