Platform Housing Group Limited (202012060)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012060

Platform Housing Group Limited

26 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. The condition and management of the car parking area.
2. The suitability of his kitchen and his request for reimbursement for the cost of tools purchased to fit his washing machine.
3. The property not having a fridge-freezer.
4. The property not having a garden.

Jurisdiction

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Concerns about the condition and management of the car parking area.
This is because these aspects of the complaint were responded to by the landlord on 4 December 2020 in a separate response at stage one of its complaints procedure and were not escalated to the final stage by the resident. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. Therefore, these aspects of the complaint will not be considered in this investigation.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and commenced his tenancy with it on 5 September 2019. The property is a one-bedroomed house, and it is evident that this is a new-build property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 September 2019 to report that:
1. He had been promised a fridge-freezer when he moved into the property, but this was absent.
2. He had no washing machine outlet point.
3. The concreted downstairs flooring was uneven.
4. He had been informed the property had a garden but there was none.
5. There were dust mites throughout the property which he had to pay to have removed.
The resident reported on 13 September 2020 that the space for the washing machine and fridge-freezer was too small. The developer of the property attended later that day to address the washing machine pipework and inspect the flooring.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 and 26 September 2020, 20 December 2020 and 14 February 2020 to chase its response to his concerns.
The landlord’s records noted on 10 October 2019 that it had contacted the resident who would not allow access to the property.
The landlord conducted an ‘end of defects’ inspection on 3 March 2020 where two issues were raised: holes in the flooring, which was lifting, and fitting of a fan.
Following contact from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord on 17 April 2020 to request that it address his concerns as a formal complaint. The landlord contacted the resident to acknowledge this three days later.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 7 May 2020 in which it referred to a telephone conversation on 20 April 2020 where the resident detailed his points of complaint. These were:
1. The property was advertised as having a fridge-freezer which it did not.
2. He had been informed during the sign-up process that there was a garden, but there was not.
3. He believed the kitchen worktops were below the standard height which left inadequate space for a washing machine and the kitchen was in an overall poor condition.
The landlord noted that the resident had contacted it several times during September 2019 about the fridge-freezer and garden, and its response to him about this had been delayed due to miscommunication. It confirmed that the property had originally been advertised to be supplied with a fridge-freezer and it agreed to reimburse the resident £120 for his subsequent purchase of this.
The landlord noted that the original advertisement for the property had not mentioned a garden and it had found no evidence of the resident being told that there was, although it acknowledged that the resident said he had been informed otherwise during the sign-up process. It advised that this had been raised with management staff and it apologised for “any incorrect information given”.
The landlord advised that it had followed up with the developer about the resident’s contention that the kitchen worktops were below the correct height and that the developer had confirmed that the worktops were fitted to a standard height to accommodate appliances underneath. The landlord noted that the developer had attended the property on 13 September 2019 to address this and was “hopeful” that the resident was satisfied with this. It relayed that it had been unable to gain access to the property to inspect the kitchen which delayed any further works.
The landlord noted that the end of defects inspection, which occurred on 3 March 2020, had only noted one issue within the kitchen: an extractor fan which it was already investigating. It confirmed that it would not adjust the worktops any further and that it would not reimburse the resident for the cost of any tools which he had purchased to fit his washing machine.
The resident emailed the landlord later on 7 May 2020 to express his dissatisfaction with its response and a number of additional issues. He disputed that he had refused access to the landlord and stated that he had received a visit from a staff member who had said they would return with measuring equipment, but he did not receive any further contact. The resident asserted that he had recorded telephone calls which proved he was advised of the property having a garden. He also said that the compensation the landlord had offered did not cover the cost of a drill which he had purchased or his further costs to “have this kitchen raised again” when he purchased a new fridge.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation of his complaint to a final review on 15 May 2020 and advised that it would provide a response to him within 30 working days.
The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident on 24 June 2020 which confirmed that it was not escalating his complaint for a final review. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s statement that he had proof of being advised that the property had a garden but asserted that “an escalation of [his] complaint” would not change the outcome as “the property does not benefit from a garden and [it was] unable to change that”.
The landlord reiterated that the developer of the property had attended on 13 September 2019 to address the defect preventing the resident from installing his washing machine and therefore it would not reimburse him for the cost of the drill he had purchased.
The landlord provided updates on two of the additional issues raised by the resident and repeated its proposed resolution from its stage one response of reimbursing him for the cost of the fridge-freezer he had purchased. It asserted that he had not provided any new evidence to support his request for the escalation of the complaint; it had already considered his escalation reasons in its stage one response, and it did not consider that these would lead to a different outcome for him.

Assessment and findings

Policies

The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that is it responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property and the installations for the supply of heating, sanitation, and utilities.
The landlord’s “what repairs are you responsible for” webpage confirms that the resident is responsible for connecting and plumbing in new appliances such as washing machines, and also altering kitchen units to fit new appliances.
The landlord’s “our customer commitment” handbook advises that, if a resident moves into a brand new property, repairs to the property may be covered by a six or 12 month defects period guarantee. During this time, it will ask the original builder of the property to carry out any repairs.
The landlord’s compensation policy provides for payment of compensation where there has been a service failure leading to actual loss.
The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage formal complaint procedure, where responses at both stages are to be responded to within 30 working days. This policy confirms that complaints may not be escalated to the final stage if no new evidence is provided to support the escalation request, the reasons for escalation were already considered at stage one, and the escalation reasons would not lead to a change of outcome.

The suitability of his kitchen and his request for reimbursement for the cost of tools purchased to fit his washing machine

The landlord’s tenancy agreement and “what repairs are you responsible for” webpage, above at points 22 and 23, do not specify that it is responsible for repairs to the kitchen fixtures, such as the worktops. However, as the tenancy agreement confirms that it was responsible for the installation for the provision of sanitation, it was appropriate for it to arrange for the developer to remedy the defect which prevented him from installing a washing machine, as the property was still within its defects period, as per its “our customer commitment” handbook above at point 24.
The resident requested reimbursement for tools purchased to install his washing machine, which the landlord declined. Its “what repairs are you responsible for” webpage, above at point 23, also confirms that the resident was responsible for the fitting of a washing machine and for the alteration of kitchen units to fit appliances; therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to refuse to reimburse him as there was no evidence of any failure on its part which necessitated the resident’s purchase of tools.
There are conflicting accounts from the landlord and the resident on whether an inspection was attempted to confirm that the kitchen worktops were installed at a correct height. However, it was a reasonable response from the landlord to relay, in its stage one complaint response on 7 May 2020, that it had contacted the developer to obtain confirmation that the worktops had been installed at a standard height. There is no evidence that the landlord made further attempts to inspect the kitchen and it is recommended to do this to provide further clarity on the matter.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the property not having a fridge-freezer

In the landlord’s stage one complaint response on 7 May 2020 to the resident, it identified that its advertisement for the property had been misleading. It was, therefore, reasonable for it to offer to reimburse the resident for his costs in purchasing a fridge-freezer. This demonstrated that it acknowledged its failing and ‘made things right’, in line with our dispute resolution principles. This was also in accordance with its compensation policy, above at point 24, as it had identified a failure which had led to financial loss on the resident’s behalf.
However, the landlord acknowledged that it had delayed its response to the resident’s query about the fridge-freezer, which he first reported on 11 September 2019 and it did not address until its stage one complaint response on 7 May 2020. This is a period of 8 months where its lack of response is likely to have contributed to inconvenience and distress to the resident. Therefore, the landlord should pay an additional amount of £50 in compensation to him. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there has been a “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact”.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the property not having a garden

When it is reported to a landlord that it provided incorrect information to a resident, it would be expected to investigate the matter. It is noted that the landlord investigated the resident’s claim that he had been informed that the property had a garden in its stage one complaint response on 7 May 2020 and found no evidence of this. However, in his complaint escalation request, also on 7 May 2020, he advised that he had proof of this, but this appears to have been disregarded by the landlord.
The landlord’s final response to the resident on 24 June 2020 stated that it had not received any new evidence to support his escalation request, and that any consideration of this aspect of the complaint would not change the outcome, ostensibly that it would not be able to provide him with a garden. This is a failure by the landlord to consider that, if he had been misadvised, then detriment may have been caused to the resident in the form of inconvenience, frustration or raised expectations. While it may not be practical or possible to provide the resident with a garden as a resolution, if it found that he was misadvised, another remedy may be appropriate to recognise any detriment caused to him.
Therefore, the landlord’s refusal to consider the resident’s evidence that he had been misinformed about a garden at the property was a failure to fully investigate his report, and also a failure to consider the complaint in accordance with its complaints policy, above at point 26, as it did not consider new evidence mentioned by the resident. In recognition of this failure, and its delay in responding to him about this which it acknowledged, it should pay compensation of £100 to the resident. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where a failure has occurred which caused delays in getting matters resolved.
The landlord should also liaise with the resident to obtain the evidence which he said showed that he was misinformed and if it is found that this was the case, it should consider making a further offer of compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the suitability of his kitchen and his request for reimbursement for the cost of tools purchased to fit his washing machine.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the property not having a fridge.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the property not having a garden.

Reasons

The landlord responded reasonably and promptly in arranging for the repair of the defect preventing him from installing a washing machine and made reasonable efforts to confirm that the height of the kitchen worktops was a standard height.
The landlord acknowledged its error in advertising that the property came supplied with a fridge freezer and reimbursed him for the purchase of this. However, it delayed in responding to the resident’s report which is likely to have caused distress to him.
The landlord failed to consider additional evidence in support of his complaint escalation which may have led to a different outcome for him and delayed in responding to his report being misinformed about the presence of a garden at the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to pay the resident £150 in compensation within 28 days of this determination, made up of:
1. £50 for its service failure in relation to its response to the resident’s concerns about the property not having a fridge.
2. £100 for its service failure in relation to its response to the resident’s concerns about the property not having a garden.
The landlord is to obtain the evidence which the resident stated confirmed he was misinformed about the presence of a garden at the property and assess the merit of this. If it finds that it had misinformed him, it is to consider further compensation.

Recommendation

The landlord should arrange another inspection of the resident’s kitchen to confirm whether the height of the worktops is correct.