Onward Homes Limited (202105328)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105328

Onward Homes Limited

19 August 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

1. The complaint is about the:
   1. Landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen.
   2. Information provided to the resident about when her kitchen would be refurbished.

Background and summary of events

2. On 29 September 2020 the landlord inspected the resident’s kitchen. The surveyor later noted on 21 October 2020 that he had been asked to assess the condition of the kitchen. The resident had told him that she had replaced the original kitchen, which she said was due for replacement in 2019, at her own expense because it was in poor condition. The surveyor took photos of the kitchen and recommended to the landlord that the kitchen be replaced.
3. On 22 October 2020 the landlord raised a repair order to remove the resident’s kitchen unit, fill holes behind to prevent rats entering, and refix the unit. On 26 October 2020 the resident called the landlord and was told about the pending repair job. The resident said she did not see the point of the repair if she was due a new kitchen, and the landlord advised that the surveyor was still considering the matter.
4. The resident called for an update on 4 November 2020 and was told that she was “down for a new kitchen” to be fitted in 2021, and the repair was raised as a temporary fix.
5. In a call to the landlord on 1 December 2020 the resident was told that the kitchen replacement had not been approved. She expressed her dissatisfaction with the conflicting information given.
6. On 3 December 2020 one of the landlord’s operatives attended for the kitchen repair. However, the operative informed the resident that another operative and different materials were needed to complete the repairs. The resident explained that there were issues with rats getting into her cupboards, so she was only able to use one wall cupboard to store food. 
7. On 7 December 2020 the resident complained to the landlord that the next available appointment wasn’t until 11 January 2021, and that she was misinformed about getting a new kitchen. The resident asked for an update on 12 and 15 December 2020 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 December 2020. It advised that its office would be closed between 24 December 2020 and 4 January 2021, and it aimed to respond within ten working days.
8. The landlord sent its stage one complaint response on 23 December 2020. It explained that the resident’s kitchen renewal was planned for April 2026. It acknowledged that its surveyor had recommended that the kitchen be renewed, but this needed approval and agreement from the relevant team. The renewal had been rejected at this time because the kitchen was found to be in a suitable condition. The landlord acknowledged that this must have been frustrating for the resident who thought she would be having a new kitchen fitted, and apologised.
9. The landlord confirmed that the planned kitchen repair had been scheduled for 3 December 2020, but had not been completed as two operatives were needed. It confirmed that a new appointment had been booked for 11 January 2021. The landlord advised that it was unable to bring the appointment forward, and apologised that the repair had not been carried out as planned. It said that the job should have been properly assessed prior to the appointment on 3 December 2020, so that it could have been completed on the same day.  The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for the delay.
10. On 7 January 2021 the resident called the landlord and rejected its compensation offer. She said that she had been told on multiple occasions that a new kitchen would be installed, and was unhappy that this was no longer happening. The resident also said that she had not received the landlord’s written complaint response (it is not clear if the resident was advised of the complaint response by telephone). The landlord subsequently forwarded the resident its response of 23 December 2020.
11. On 2 March 2021 the resident said she was dissatisfied with the complaint response because she was told she would have a new kitchen. The landlord responded and confirmed it was reviewing its decision on the kitchen renewal.
12. The landlord’s internal records show that the surveyor explained on 4 March 2021 that the kitchen appeared to be in good condition, however his recommendation was based on the resident’s advice that approximately 9 years ago she was told the kitchen would be renewed around 2020. The resident advised the surveyor that she had asked if she could install her own as a temporary measure and permission was granted. She said that she was told this would not affect the renewal of her kitchen. The surveyor said he told the resident that “based on the data, I would recommend a new kitchen to our asset team but the decision is theirs and not mine, I can only recommend”.
13. On 10 March 2021 the landlord advised that it would not agree to the kitchen replacement and had therefore escalated her complaint.
14. In the landlord’s final complaint response of 24 March 2021, it explained that it had found the existing kitchen to be in good condition and did not warrant immediate replacement. It confirmed it had assessed the kitchen based on its condition and age and assigned the correct kitchen replacement programme date for properties in the neighbourhood of 2026/27.
15. The landlord said that it was normal practice for residents to be responsible for the maintenance of components they had fitted. However, it agreed to complete repairs to mitigate the rodent problem. The landlord reoffered £50 for the delay in completing this agreed repair. It directed the resident to contact this Service if she remained unhappy with the response.

Assessment and findings

16. In line with the landlord’s repairs handbook and the resident’s tenancy agreement, any issues with pests or infestations in a property are generally the resident’s responsibility. The landlord is responsible for the repair of internal walls but not painting and decoration. The resident is responsible for repairing small cracks in plaster and decorating internal walls. The repairs handbook gives a timescale of 20 working days for routine repairs.
17. The Decent Homes Standard defines a decent home as: meeting the minimum safety standards for housing, being in a reasonable state of repair, having reasonably modern facilities and services, and sufficient thermal comfort. Under the Standard, the Government defines a modern kitchen as less than 30 years old. However, in line with its own home standard policy, the landlord will replace kitchens every 15-20 years.
18. The landlord has a document setting out internal guidance for goodwill payments. In line with this, the landlord will not provide compensation for one missed or cancelled routine repair. However, it may provide a payment of £50 for general poor customer service if a complaint is upheld

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

19.  Generally, landlords are not responsible for pests unless there is a structural issue, such as holes in walls, allowing pests entry into the property. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord ultimately took reasonable steps to remove the resident’s kitchen units, fill in holes allowing access to pests, and refix the units, which fell within its remit to complete. There were delays in the landlord completing the repair as a result of its contractor not being sufficiently prepared to complete it on the first appointment. This meant that the repair was not completed in the landlord’s 20-day timescale, which constituted a failure in service.
20. However, the landlord subsequently took the opportunity of the formal complaints process to investigate, formally confirm its position and complete the repairs, and offer compensation. The compensation offered was proportionate to the service failure identified and also in line with the landlord’s internal compensation guidance, therefore it was reasonable.

Information provided to the resident about when her kitchen would be refurbished.

21. When a resident states that their kitchen is not of a reasonable standard or requires replacing, a landlord should carry out an inspection to ensure that its obligations (as stated in the decent home standard and its own policies) are being met. In this instance, the landlord inspected the kitchen. Although the surveyor did recommend that the kitchen be replaced, he said that this was because the stock data said this was due, and not because of its condition. The landlord therefore declined the kitchen replacement because the resident replaced her kitchen around nine years before. The landlord’s records confirm that the kitchen was of a reasonable condition and age.
22. Social landlords need to make the most effective use of their limited resources, and so the landlord’s decision not to renew a kitchen that was in good order and compliant with such guidelines as the Decent Home Standard was not unreasonable. Ultimately, the landlord has relied on the findings of its qualified staff and contractors, who deemed that the kitchen was not yet in a condition that warranted a full replacement before the planned programme date of 2026, based on its age and condition.
23. It is clear that the resident understood from the inspection that her kitchen would be renewed, and that is understandable, given that the surveyor confirmed he told her he would make that recommendation. The landlord added to that confusion (albeit unwittingly) when it told her on 4 November 2020 that she was “down for a new kitchen” to be fitted in 2021. Its subsequent confirmation that it would not renew the kitchen would have been predictably frustrating for the resident, whose expectations had been raised.
24. Given that the decision to renew the kitchen relied on more than the surveyor’s recommendations, it seems unwise to raise the resident’s expectations by telling her what that recommendation would be, even if it was an attempt to be helpful. This is especially relevant as the kitchen’s condition was not of a level that would usually be renewed. That action, coupled with the information given on 4 November, meant the resident’s expectations were unreasonably raised.
25. When a landlord is at fault, it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what the landlord will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. Although the landlord acknowledged that the resident was disappointed with its decision on the kitchen replacement, it failed to acknowledge and remedy its poor handling of her expectations which was a key aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

26. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen satisfactorily.
27. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the complaint about the information provided to the resident about when her kitchen would be refurbished.

Reasons

28. The landlord provided reasonable redress by way of an apology, acknowledgement and compensation for the delay in completing the kitchen repair. The compensation offered was proportionate to the service failure, and in line with the landlord’s internal guidance on compensation. The landlord also provided a reasonable explanation for why it would not renew the resident’s kitchen. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge and redress its failure to  reasonably manage the resident’s expectations for the kitchen renewal.

Orders

29. In light of the findings of this investigation, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £75 for the frustration and inconvenience caused. This is in addition to the landlord’s offer of £50, which should also be paid if it has not already.
30. This payment must be made within four weeks of the date of this report. Evidence of payment must be provided to this Service within that time frame.