Nottingham City Homes Limited (202228693)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228693

Nottingham City Council

23 February 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her kitchen cupboards.

Background

2. The resident has been a secured tenant at the property of the landlord since 16 July 2021. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 2 bedroom mid-terraced house.
3. The resident reported that her kitchen cupboards had fallen off her wall and smashed into her microwave on 10 October 2022. The landlord attended to complete a repair on 4 November 2022; however, the resident was not in as the landlord attended prior to the time she had advised she would be available.
4. The resident subsequently raised a formal complaint, which included the following:
   1. The resident had an appointment booked for the repair to be undertaken on 4 November 2022. She spoke to the landlord that day who confirmed the contractor would attend after 3:30pm.
   2. The contractor attended at 2:55pm. The resident later called the contractor who advised that they would investigate what had occurred and would call her back.
   3. The resident left work early and went home but she never received a call back from the landlord or it’s contractor.
5. After receiving advice from the landlord, on 25 October 2022, the resident submitted a compensation claim form which stated that the kitchen cupboards had caused damage to a clothes rail and ripped the flooring. She further stated that it had hit and dented her microwave, which was now making a loud noise, but she could not afford a new one.
6. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 14 November 2022 said:
   1. It had investigated the complaint and found the note for the contractor to attend after 3:30pm never got passed over from the customer service centre which is why they attended early.
   2. The landlord confirmed the issue had occurred due to their own internal communication issues and gave a new repair date for 21 November 2022 after 3:30pm.
   3. In upholding the complaint, the landlord apologised for the time taken to resolve the repair and for not keeping the resident up to date.
7. The resident requested and escalation to stage 2 on 22 November 2022. She said that she was still dissatisfied as the work had not been completed as advised on 21 November 2022. The resident said that she was not happy that the landlord had not kept to its agreed actions.
8. The landlord attended on 24 November 2022 to complete the repair. A follow-on job was also required as further work was needed due to some water and rodent damage in the kitchen.
9. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 16 December 2022 said:
   1. It acknowledged that it did not communicate with the resident effectively when it needed to change her appointment on 21 November 2022.
   2. It acknowledged it had not learnt from the original complaint and apologised that the resident had to escalate her complaint.
   3. It confirmed it would contact the resident prior to Christmas to confirm a suitable appointment for the additional repairs.
   4. It confirmed it would try to match new cupboards to the residents existing kitchen colour but advised it was not always possible due to supply issues.
   5. It confirmed it would investigate what stage the resident’s compensation claim was at.
10. The landlord attended on 4 January 2023 to complete the repairs, but the repair was declined by the resident as the kitchen cupboards were a different colour.
11. On 23 January 2023, the landlord’s insurance team confirmed that the landlord had not acted negligently as the cupboards falling off was unforeseeable. Therefore, it did not accept her claim.
12. On 14 February 2023, the landlord conducted a review of its stage 2 response. The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence to explain why this review took place. It said:
    1. The landlord had attended to repair the kitchen, but this was declined by the resident as she wanted her cupboards to be one colour.
    2. It had then put forward a proposal to replace all the kitchen frontages with maple coloured frontages but that was declined by the resident.
    3. It confirmed it had tried to resolve the repair issues in the kitchen. It confirmed the kitchen was not due to be replaced for 6 to 10 years and said it remained willing to complete the repair and discuss frontage options with the resident.
13. In referring to this Service, the resident said she was dissatisfied that her kitchen cupboards were replaced with different colours to her existing kitchen. She advised she would have to pay someone to wrap the cupboards with Fablon.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

14. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance service standards state that for priority repairs, these would be completed within 7 to 30 working days of the issue being reported. It gives minor kitchen repairs as an example of priority repairs.
15. The landlord’s discretionary compensation policy states that they would consider discretionary compensation in any case where they have failed to meet their own service targets and gives failing to attend an appointment or carry out a service within an agreed timescale as examples. It further states that they expect residents to take out content’s insurance for their personal possessions.

Kitchen cupboards

16. The resident first reported that her kitchen cupboard had fallen off the wall on 10 October 2022. In line with its repairs policy, the landlord attended on 4 November 2022.
17. The resident advised the landlord that due to work commitments she would not be home until after 3:30pm. The contractor attended at 2:50pm. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response that the resident’s availability did not get passed onto the contractor. This was not reasonable and caused the resident to leave work early. Landlords should ensure where timed appointments are offered, that contractors are aware of arrangements agreed when repairs are reported. Not doing so in this case caused an unnecessary delay to the completion of the repair and frustrated the resident.
18. In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed that a new repair was booked for 21 November 2022. However, no one attended on that date and the evidence suggests the appointment was changed without the landlord informing the resident of this. The Ombudsman expects landlords to have robust system in place to ensure where appointments need to be changed, the resident is informed of this. Not doing so added to the delays and frustrations the resident had already experienced in this case and would have damaged the landlord and resident relationship.
19. The repair was partially completed on 24 November 2022, with a follow up appointment booked for 4 January 2023. On that date, the resident declined the repair as the kitchen cupboards were a different colour to the ones already in place. In its stage 2 response, the landlord attempted to manage the resident’s expectations in advising that the cupboards may be a different colour due to supply issues. It was reasonable of it to warn the resident that her new cupboard may be a different colour to her existing ones.
20. In confirming that the resident’s kitchen was not due to be replaced for another 6 to 10 years, the landlord offered to replace all the kitchen frontages to one colour (maple). This was a reasonable attempt to resolve the issue and highlighted that the landlord showed empathy with the resident and her concerns about living with mismatched cupboards. It would not be proportionate for a landlord to replace a full kitchen every time a colour matching issue arose. Therefore, offering to change all the frontages was a satisfactory response in the circumstances.
21. This Service understands that the resident wanted the cupboards to be replaced with either white or grey frontages and not the maple offered. While it is desirable to have a kitchen in the colour you prefer, this Service understands that landlords have finite resources and must manage their budgets responsibly. Given that the resident’s kitchen was not due to be replaced for another 6 to 10 years, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer frontages that would match. The landlord had a responsibility to complete the repair and it went above its responsibility to offer a solution that allowed all the cupboard frontages to match; this was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord further appropriately reiterated its offer to replace all the kitchen frontages when it conducted a review of its response at stage 2.
22. Following the kitchen cupboards falling off the wall, the resident requested compensation for the damaged caused to her flooring, clothes rail, and microwave. The landlord did not accept liability and therefore appropriately directed the resident to its insurance team for a claim to be submitted. While the landlord has a responsibility to complete a repair, the insurer’s position was that the cupboards falling off the wall was unforeseeable. The insurer therefore found that the landlord was not to blame for the issue occurring and rejected the claim. It was appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident to its insurance team to pursue a claim. Further to this, the landlord’s compensation policy states that it expects residents to have contents insurance in place. It is unclear in this case if the resident did have her own insurance policy. However, the landlord’s response was appropriate and in line with its policies.
23. While the landlord did initially delay unreasonably in completing this repair, it acknowledged that its own communication had fallen short of the standard expected and apologised. It then attempted to conduct a repair and subsequently offered to replace all the kitchen frontages. While this repair could have been completed in a timelier manner, the landlord’s offer to replace all the kitchen frontages is appropriate in all the circumstances and highlights a commitment to the landlord and resident relationship and dispute resolution principles.
24. Therefore, while there were delays in this case, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s apology for the delays, it’s acknowledgment of its failings in this case and its offer to replace to the frontages in the resident’s kitchen amounts to reasonable redress.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damage to her kitchen cupboards.

Recommendation

26. The landlord should reoffer to replace the resident’s frontages with ones that are all one same colour.