Places for People Homes Limited (202119956)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119956

Places for People Homes Limited

20 April 2023

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 repairs concerning the kitchen, bathroom and front door.

Background and Summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a housing association. The property is a three-bedroom house and the tenancy started on 17 May 2017. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The tenancy agreement sets out both the landlord’s and the tenant’s responsibilities in terms of repairs. The agreement states that the landlord is responsible to keep in repair and proper working order any installations provided by the landlord for sanitation, including basins, sinks, toilets and flushing systems. In addition, it is responsible for the structure of the property including doors, door frames and hinges. The landlord is not liable for work or repairs which are the resident’s responsibility, or if they are needed because of neglect caused by the resident. The agreement states that the resident is required to keep the interior of the premises in good and clean condition.
The landlord’s repairs policy defines repairs as either emergency or other. Emergency repairs are defined on its website and will be dealt with, within 24 hours. For all other repairs an appointment will be made at the resident’s convenience to complete the repairs within 28 calendar days from receipt of the customer request.

Summary of events

Information provided by the landlord showed that on 9 November 2020, the resident complained about poor work completed by a contractor. The information does not set out what works were completed, but as a result of the complaint the landlord visited the property to inspect the works on 18 December 2020.
On 21 December 2020 the landlord raised a job to replace the back door at the property. The following day the landlord raised an order to carry out remedial works to the bathroom panel and sealant, to replace the sealant in the kitchen, replace extractor fans in both the kitchen and bathroom and overhaul the front door. The back door was renewed on 14 January 2021 and on 18 January 2021, the landlord raised an order for decoration vouchers promised during the visit on 18 December 2020.
On 21 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to express her dissatisfaction, she stated that sufficient attention had not been given to the issues discussed in December 2020. She stated that the back door had been replaced, but the front door was left as it was and that it isn’t safe or secure. She stated that the bath panel had not been fixed.
According to an internal email, on 25 February 2021, after attempting to contact the resident, the landlord left a voicemail explaining that some work had been postponed due to Covid lockdown restrictions. The resident responded that she was happy with the response. In addition the landlord confirmed that it had been able to bring forward carpentry work required at the property for 5 March 2021.
On 8 April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that she wanted to add additional items to her outstanding repairs. She stated that there was damp on the living room walls and windows and she also asked the landlord to follow up on the repairs to the front door and bathroom.
The landlord’s internal notes show that the issue with the front door was reported again on 15 April 2021. It was reported that the frame had been damaged through wear and tear, there were gaps and intermittent issues with the lock. According to the landlord the door was old but repairable but the resident refused the repairs as she wanted it replaced for new. On the same day the landlord also inspected the bathroom sink and toilet that had been reported as draining slowly. An appointment was arranged for a plumber to attend. The repair is showing as having been completed on 9 May 2021.
The landlord inspected the property on 16 April 2021 and confirmed that there was no sign of damp on the wall. It stated that there was some staining around the windows and door, but this was due to the product that had been used to clean the silicone.
On 6 May 2021, the resident reported that there was no sealant between the bathroom tiles and panels and that it was not water tight. The internal notes stated that a contractor renewed four rows of tiles around the bath, including the bath panel. The notes also stated the resident was unhappy and wanted the walls tiled to the ceiling so that she could use the bath as a shower. According to the landlord, the bathroom not was not suitable for a fitted shower. The resident also reported that the toilet cistern was old and worn. An operative attended and told the resident that both the cistern and toilet were fully functioning and therefore no repair was completed.
On 20 May 2021, the resident requested a trade supervisor inspection.
According to the landlord’s internal notes, it visited the property on 24 May 2021, following the resident’s refusal of works to the door and bathroom.
Internal notes show that the landlord inspected the property as requested on 24 May 2021 and noted that:
1. the resident wanted a new front door. The landlord advised that the door could be repaired.
2. There was a pinhole size chip in the enamel in the bath and that this could also be repaired.
3. The bath plug and chain needed to be renewed.
4. The bath panel had been cut too short.
5. The toilet cistern was old, but fit for use.
6. The radiator pie clip needed to be re-attached.
7. The kitchen needed a new FD30 fire door.
8. A 28 mm work top strip needed to be renewed and fixed down
9. Two kitchen shelves need to be renewed.
The landlord raised a Priority 3 works order on 28 May 2021 to address all of the repairs it noted during its inspection, it was treated as a responsive repair. According to the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, for all repairs that aren’t classified as emergency an appointment will be made to complete the necessary repair works within 28 calendar days from receipt of the request.
On 12 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to ask it to confirm the details of the work that was being completed. She also asked for a manager to contact her before the work started as there were issues with the bath, toilet and front door not being sealed or secure.
The landlord responded in an email on the same day and listed the following work:
1. A plumber to attend Thursday 22nd July to:
  1. Renew plugs and chains in bath and basin
  2. Refix cistern lid
  3. Re-enamel chips in bath
  4. Refix radiator pipe clips
  5. Re-grout / make good previously fitted tiles
2. A Joiner to attend Thursday 22nd July & Friday 23rd July to:
  1. Repair the front door – Refix lock, Adjust bottom keep, Renew letter plate, Fill 4 screw holes.
  2. Renew adhesive draft excluder.
  3. Renew bath panel and make good.
  4. Overhaul kitchen cupboard doors.
  5. Renew kitchen door with a fire rated door.
  6. Renew 28mm worktop joining strip.
  7. Renew x2 kitchen shelves.
3. The joiner/plumber would also try to repair any other small tasks. But if the tasks were too large to complete during the day, the resident would need to report via the usual method.
The resident responded the same day, that she was unhappy with the schedule of works. She said that both the front door and the toilet needed to be replaced and asked for a new work plan, that included a new front door and toilet, to be sent prior to 22 July 2021. Then in a follow up email she said that the landlord had failed to mention the new kitchen fire door. She added that two shelves in the kitchen were also broken.
In its response that day, the landlord said that following the visit to the property in May it was confident that all of the items on the schedule of works were repairable. In addition, it highlighted that a new kitchen fire door had been included in the schedule of works and confirmed that it would ask the joiner to fix the shelves.
On 13 July 2021, the resident raised a stage one complaint. She said that she wanted another inspection of all the items mentioned in the schedule of works. She added that she was not happy for the landlord to fix the items, as in her opinion they were irreparable.
The landlord responded the following day with a reference number for the complaint and said that the resident should have a response by 27 July 2021.
The resident responded that she was not happy for the repairs to go ahead if the door, bath and toilet were not replaced. She also asked for feedback on the issues raised with the subcontractor the previous week, regarding a hole in the kitchen sink and the kitchen cupboards being in poor state of repair.
In response, the landlord said that it had cancelled the work planned for 22 and 23 July 2021, as requested by the resident. With regards the visit from the sub-contractors, it said that it was part of the planned works team, and that the team would contact the resident, as appropriate, once the information it collected had been processed.
Internal notes provided by the landlord showed that the landlord had attempted to telephone the resident on 19 July 2021.
On 22 July, the resident telephoned the landlord and said that she was expecting the repairs to be done that day and that she wanted to know why the work hadn’t started. She reiterated that she thought the front door, bath, bathroom tiles and toilet needed to be replaced. She also asked when she should expect the kitchen fire door to be replaced.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 28 and 29 July 2021 and said that she was waiting for a call back about the ongoing repair complaint. She added that the property was in poor condition and that her family were living without decent basic working facilities. She said the property did not have a fully functioning hygienic toilet or a bath without chips in the enamel.
An internal email dated 29 July 2021, included an attachment with two photos, the first showing the chip in the bath enamel and the second showing the lock on the front door, which the landlord said had an ‘incorrect size and loose screw’. The email also stated that the resident had refused the repairs.
Internal notes dated 30 July 2021, showed that the landlord had spoken with the resident and agreed an extension to respond to the complaint. In addition, the resident asked the landlord to find out the dates for planned repairs and maintenance programmes.
On 9 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again and said that she had been promised an answer to her complaint by 6 August 2021.
The following day the landlord responded to the stage one complaint. It apologised for the delay in responding and set out the details of the conversation they had on 30 July 2021. It provided the dates for the assessment of planned repairs. It confirmed that it had tried to book an appointment for the repairs but that the resident had refused them as she wanted a new front door, kitchen and bathroom. It stated that it could not replace the items with new until it had exhausted all avenues to make the repairs required and it recommended that it carry out the repairs in the first instance. The landlord added that given the conversation they had had, and that the landlord did not agree that the items need to be replaced with new, it had automatically escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two.
The resident responded on 11 August and provided photos of the issues with the kitchen and bathroom. She said that she as disappointed that the kitchen wouldn’t be assessed for replacement for such a long time and added that all of the cupboards were chipped and that they had no backing. She also asked for a date when the repairs would take place.
She sent a further email on 19 August 2021 and said that she did not want to wait until 8 September for a response to her stage two complaint. She reiterated that the bathroom was damaged, there were no fire doors, the front door was faulty and the kitchen cupboards were broken.
Internal notes showed that the landlord contacted the resident the following day to discuss the complaint. Then on 26 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord regarding the repairs that had been booked for November. The resident emailed the landlord again on 1 September 2021 and disagreed with the landlord’s view that the bath and the toilet were repairable and said that she wanted them to be replaced. She added that all the kitchen cupboards needed to be surveyed as there was damage round all of the inside of the doors. She repeated that there was no backing to the cupboards. She also added that the kitchen sink leaked and that there was a sticky substance at the bottom of it. In addition, she said she was not prepared to wait until November for the repairs.
After acknowledging the email on 3rd September 2021, the landlord provided a stage two update on 6 September 2021. In the response the landlord attached labelled photos showing the concerning areas in the kitchen and bathroom and gave narrative for each of the items shown. It said:
1. Item A. – Minimal amount of limescale build-up on the collar of the basin. Cleaning / decorating this falls under ‘tenant responsibility’.
2. Item B. – Grime / build-up of limescale on bottom of cistern again this calls under ‘tenants responsibility’.
3. Item C. – 10cm “crack” to wallpaper / paint / plaster. This would be considered decorating and falls under ‘tenant responsibility’.
4. Item D. – Dusty / dirty bathroom area. This would be considered cleaning / decorating and falls under ‘tenant responsibility’.
5. Item E. – Dusty / dirty pipework within bathroom. This would be considered cleaning / decorating and falls under ‘tenant responsibility’.
6. Item F. – Slight limescale build-up around bath overflow point, pin-head sized chip to bath enamel. I have been advised that the bath enamel is easily repairable, the limescale build-up would be considered cleaning / decorating and falls under ‘tenant responsibility’.
7. Item G. – Dusty / dirty pipework within bathroom. This would be considered cleaning / decorating and falls under ‘tenant responsibility’.
In addition, the landlord confirmed that based on its assessment, the repairs raised did not warrant a full kitchen renovation. It advised that the resident had not previously reported a leak in the sink and that the sticky patch referred to by the resident was a standard feature. It added that the resident had refused the repairs and that on further investigation, it noted that only two of the many items listed had been reported by the resident. The landlord said that the repairs were scheduled for 11 and 12 November 2021 and that these were the earliest dates available. As well as the issues raised by the resident in her email on 1 September 2021, the landlord listed the repairs that would be completed as :
1. Renew plugs and chains in bath and basin.
2. Refix cistern lid.
3. Re-enamel chips in bath.
4. Refix radiator pipe clips.
5. Re-grout / make good previously fitted tiles.
6. Repair the front door – Refix lock, Adjust bottom keep, Renew letter plate, Fill 4 screw holes, Renew adhesive draft excluder.
7. Renew bath panel and make good.
8. Overhaul kitchen cupboard doors.
9. Renew kitchen door with a fire rated door.
10. Renew 28mm worktop joining strip.
11. Renew x2 kitchen shelves.
In response to the landlord’s stage two update, the resident said that the ‘dirt’ referred to on the toilet and plug hole was rust and could not be cleaned. In addition, she requested a fresh complaint as she was not happy with the customer service or the repairs.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 10 September 2021. In its response the landlord confirmed that parts of the resident’s complaint had not been upheld. It confirmed that it had produced a detailed schedule of works for the repairs in both the kitchen and bathroom and that the resident had cancelled the appointments in July 2021. It added that the repairs set out in the email on 6 September, were scheduled to take place on 11 and 12 November 2021. With regard the replacement front door, the landlord said that it believed that it had acted in line with its procedure and that it would not replace the door unless it was beyond repair, and that when it was inspected in May 2021 it had been found to be repairable. The landlord added that the door would be assessed again in November and that if it could not be repaired, it would be replaced.
The landlord added that it recognised that it had not responded to the resident within agreed timescales, it offered an apology and £50 compensation for the lack of communication. It confirmed that this was the final stage of the complaints process and that the resident could seek advice from the Housing ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
The following day, the resident refused the landlord’s offer of compensation, she said that she was not happy with the work plan and that it had not addressed all work that was needed. She repeated that the toilet was permanently stained and could not be cleaned, that it was unhygienic and not fit for purpose, and that she wanted it replaced. She said that she disagreed with the landlord’s findings and that she was upset that the landlord had accused her of having a dusty house. The resident also said that there was a problem with the water pressure in the property.
The landlord responded on 20 September 2021 and reminded the resident that the internal complaints process was closed and advised her to contact the Customer service centre regarding the water pressure.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 November 2021, to remind her that the repairs would take place on 11 and 12 November. An internal email dated 10 November 2021, set out the repairs that had been previously agreed.
The resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service on 29 November 2021 as she was disappointed with the landlord’s stage two response. She said that the landlord had agreed to do some works but not all of them and that it had not completed all of the works it had agreed. The resident also said that she was unhappy they she had been blamed for some of the issues.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair
Put things right
Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Social landlords have limited budgets and are expected to use resources effectively for the benefit of all residents. The landlord would not be expected to replace items within a property at the resident’s request unless the item in question was beyond economical repair. Doing so would be considered an improvement which the landlord is not strictly obliged to do. In addition, landlords are entitled to complete work to replace kitchens, doors and windows as part of a planned programme of works rather than on an ad-hoc basis unless the item in question is beyond economic repair. The landlord is ultimately entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff and contractors when determining whether an item can be successfully repaired.
This Service has seen evidence that the landlord surveyed the repairs highlighted by the resident on at least three occasions, including on 18 December 2020, 15 April 2021 and 24 May 2021 It noted that all were repairable and issued a schedule of works to attend to the repairs. This was a reasonable approach and was in line with the landlord’s policy position and repairing obligations.
When asked, the landlord provided the dates for major planned works, given that it had surveyed the repairs highlighted and noted that all were repairable it was reasonable for the landlord to adhere to the calendar of planned works.
While it is the resident’s view that the kitchen and bathroom installations were old, it is reasonable for the landlord to survey the installations and make repairs if necessary and where possible, before replacing with new.
Following the resident’s refusal for the works to take place in July 2021, the landlord rescheduled the work to take place on 11 and 12 November 2021, it explained to the resident that these were the earliest dates available for the work to take place. Whilst the appointment given did exceed the landlord’s own target timescale to carry out repair, the landlord explained that this was the earliest date available. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to stray from its published timescales. Furthermore the landlord communicated with the resident regarding the delay and therefore managed her expectations with regard timescales.
In its stage two response the landlord clarified that surveys of the front door had concluded that it was repairable. Nevertheless, it explained that if the operative was unable to repair the door during the appointment they would measure up for a new door and the landlord would arrange for it to be replaced. This was an appropriate and reasonable suggestion. This demonstrated that the landlord had listened to the resident and adopted a solution focused response, it provided a long term solution to the issue if the initial repairs it had proposed did not remedy the matter.
The landlord noted, in its stage two response that it had failed to respond to the resident’s complaint within a reasonable timescale and offered to pay the resident £50 for its lack of communication. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its delay and make that offer.
This Service acknowledges that the resident has raised a further complaint with the landlord since the landlord’s final stage two response. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in landlord’s handling of repairs concerning the kitchen, bathroom and front door.

Reasons

The landlord acted appropriately and reasonably in offering to make the repairs to the kitchen, bathroom and front door. The landlord responded to the repairs raised and carried out a number of inspections. After having carried out surveys, it was reasonable for the landlord to make repairs rather than offer replacements, and this was in line with its policy position and repairing obligations. When it agreed the repairs, it communicated appropriately with the resident. In addition, the landlord agreed to consider replacement of the front door, if the repairs were unsuccessful.

Recommendations

This Service recommends that the landlord re-offer to the resident, the £50 compensation it offered in its Stage Two response.