Platform Housing Group Limited (202312100)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312100

Platform Housing Group Limited

30 September 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:
1. A refit of the resident’s kitchen.
2. A refit of the resident’s bathroom.
3. Reports of damaged and missing items.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s:
1. Record keeping.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 3-bedroom house and has lived there with her 2 children since 2020. The landlord has told this Service it is not aware of any vulnerabilities for the resident.
On 16 November 2022, the landlord raised jobs to replace the kitchen and bathroom fittings at the resident’s property, as part of a programme of works.
The kitchen refit began on 18 January 2023. The resident made multiple expressions of dissatisfaction to the landlord throughout January, February, and March 2023, regarding the quality of the work being completed. The resident was able to use her kitchen from 13 March 2023, albeit there was still snagging work outstanding.
Work to the bathroom refit started on 26 April 2023. The resident made further expressions of dissatisfaction to the landlord regarding the quality of work being completed in the bathroom in April and May 2023.
On 19 May 2023, the resident complained to the landlord regarding the standard of work to her kitchen. On 19 June 2023, she reiterated her dissatisfaction with the work to the kitchen and stated that the work to her bathroom was also unacceptable and the contractor had stopped working on it. The resident also complained that the communication from the landlord was poor, and she was unable to use both the kitchen and bathroom.
In its stage 1 complaint response dated 3 July 2023, the landlord apologised for the level of service she had received and upheld her complaint. It stated that an inspection of the work had been carried out and defects had been identified that required further attention. The landlord said it had provided the contractor with a report of works to be completed, and the materials needed had been ordered.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £300 compensation, made up of:
1. £100 for the lack of communication.
2. £100 for the delays in completing repairs.
3. £100 for the inconvenience caused.
On 4 July 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She said she had not been provided with dates or times as to when the repairs would be completed, and she was still unable to make full use of her house 6 months after the work had started.
In its stage 2 complaint response, dated 24 October 2023, the landlord again apologised for the delays to repairs. It attributed the delays to:
1. A contractor falling into receivership in July 2023, which had greatly impacted its ability to deliver the kitchen and bathroom as scheduled.
2. Disputes arose between the resident and a second contractor in August 2023 regarding quality of workmanship, and the resident refused to allow the contractor further access to her property.
3. A third contractor was appointed to start the repairs, estimated at 2 weeks, on 11 September 2023, but work was interrupted due to a change in specification for the bathroom trim that was not immediately accessible.
4. When the works recommenced, disputes arose between the resident and the contractor regarding quality of workmanship and the resident refused the contractor access, causing the works to cease.
The landlord increased its offer of compensation to the resident to £500, made up of:
1. £250 for the delay in providing the stage 2 complaint response.
2. £250 for the delay to repairs.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
In her correspondence with this Service, the resident has raised matters that occurred both before and after those subject to this complaint, that have not been through the landlord’s complaint process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 24 October 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.
The resident has informed this Service how the issues have impacted on her health. It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The evidence shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. The resident has multiple concerns about the landlord’s activities. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or personal injury.
Throughout the period complained of the resident kept her own record of events, which was shared with the landlord. The resident’s contemporaneous notes are used throughout this report due to the large gaps in the landlord’s recording keeping. It has been noted that where landlord records exist, the resident’s own notes correspond with the same dates and information. Therefore, this Service accepts the information provided by the resident as an accurate diary of events.

Kitchen refit

The refit of the resident’s kitchen was part of a planned programme of works. On 8 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord asking for a survey appointment to be arranged. It is evident from the documents provided that a survey did not take place. This was a failing as the lack of survey contributed to the problems discussed below.
Contractor 1 contacted the resident on 12 January 2023 and informed her that work would be started on 18 January 2023 and would take 2 weeks to complete. This was a reasonable planned time scale for completion of a kitchen refit as part of a larger programme of works, and as such the resident expected the refit to be completed before 1 February 2023.
On 19 and 20 January 2023, the resident recorded that contractor 1’s operatives were not taking reasonable care while carrying out their work, and unforeseen damage and mess had been caused as a result. On 23 and 24 January 2023, operatives failed to attend the resident’s address.
The resident complained to the landlord on 25 January 2023, that the work had been delayed as the new flooring had not been ordered. She stated she had already taken 1 week of unpaid leave from work to be home when the operatives needed access, and she was now going to have to take further unpaid time off. The resident stated she had no cooking or washing facilities in the kitchen, she was distraught and did not know how she was going to manage over the weekend.
The resident’s notes state that she was contacted by the landlord and informed that the works to her kitchen would take a further 15 days to complete. The resident called the landlord again on 27 January 2023, repeating her concerns. She stated she needed the work completed as soon as possible as she had no access to kitchen facilities or to wash clothes. The resident reminded the landlord she had 2 young children to look after, and she felt as though the landlord was not listening to her.
The landlord’s repair policy is silent on what support, if any, would be offered to tenant’s whose planned maintenance works extend beyond the expected timescale. Given the landlord was aware that a further 15 days were required to complete the work, and the resident was struggling without the use of a kitchen, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer further support as a step to putting things right for the resident.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) identifies that inadequate facilities for the storage and preparation of food can be a hazard. Furthermore, the landlord’s tenancy management policy suggests a temporary decant could be provided during major works to a tenant’s home that would result in severe disruption. The landlord does not appear to have considered this policy or supported the resident any further and this was a failing that caused her further distress and inconvenience.
It is unclear what action, if any, the landlord took following the resident’s phone call. The resident recorded further problems with the works being carried out on 31 January, 1 and 3 February 2023, which were reported to the landlord. These included:
1. Unsuitable tiles that did not match the original specification.
2. Irregular fitting of kitchen cupboards.
3. Damage caused to fridge door.
4. Another missed appointment by the contractor.
On 6 February 2023, the landlord contacted the resident and informed her she could buy her own tiles to speed up the process. The resident did this, and while works to the kitchen progressed, there were a number of further issues:
1. Kitchen cupboards had been put in the wrong places.
2. Cupboard doors did not fit correctly and obstructed the use of other appliances such as the washing machine.
3. Damage caused to kitchen door.
4. Problems with tiling.
5. New kitchen flooring had been ripped.
The resident initially reported these to contractor 1 on 13 February 2023, but also attempted to contact the landlord on 13, 15 and 21 February with no response. As the landlord was aware how the situation was affecting the resident for 1 month previously, its failure to respond was a significant failure of service on its part.
The evidence shows there also appears to have been no oversight by the landlord on the works carried out by contractor 1, despite the resident’s repeated expressions of dissatisfaction. The evidence shows there was no contact from the landlord to the resident that was not initiated in the first instance by her chasing up the works. This Service has received little documentary evidence from the landlord that covers the period before the resident’s complaint was recorded in May 2023.
The resident’s notes recorded a catalogue of further issues as the works progressed. The resident reported the issues are they arose with contractor 1. These included:
1. The contractor failing to attend the property between 20 and 23 February 2023 without prior notification, resulting in the resident taking unnecessary unpaid time off.
2. On 24 February 2023, the kitchen units not being adequately secured and coming away from the wall. One of which, hit the resident’s daughter on the head.
3. Tiles falling off the wall caused by the kitchen units falling.
4. On 2 March 2023, the cooker was put back in place but remained unconnected.
5. The contractor failed to attend on 3 March 2023 and 7 March 2023.
6. On 8 March 2023, a pipe was fitted to the cooker, but it was not reinstalled for the resident to use until 13 March 2023.
The resident contacted contractor 1 on 14, 21, and 29 March 2023, to chase the outstanding work to the kitchen, but received no answer. She messaged contractor 1 on 31 March 2023 to request a joint visit with the landlord due the number of issues. The resident added there was problems with the kitchen worktops and plinths, there was no extractor fan, the floor was fitted incorrectly and plug sockets were no longer working.
While ordinarily the landlord could not be expected to act upon issues it was not sighted on, it had already been aware of catalogue of reported problems at the property 2 months previously. It would have reasonable for the landlord to oversee the remaining works given the prolonged delays and liaise directly with the resident to ensure it was fulfilling its obligations. The resident’s reluctance to make further reports to the landlord is indicative of a loss in confidence in the landlord and a further breakdown of the landlord/tenant relationship.
The resident had been without a functioning kitchen from 18 January 2023 until 13 March 2023. This was 40 days longer than the work was expected to take, and at which point there were still outstanding repairs that needed to be completed. The resident had informed the landlord of the difficulties she was facing cooking and providing clean clothes for children. The landlord failed to offer any support, such as discretionary food payments or temporary accommodation. The lack of support offered by the landlord left the resident feeling ignored and added to her distress.
The resident contacted by landlord by phone on 25 April 2023, to report she was “very unhappy” that the work in her kitchen had not been finished and requested a call back urgently. The resident sent further emails on 28 April and 2 May 2023, pleading for urgent contact to be made, but it appears no replies were received. This was a further significant failing that added to the resident’s distress and frustration.
The resident also called the landlord on 2 May 2023, regarding the unfinished work in her kitchen. She stated her emails had not been replied to and she was considering legal action. It is unclear what communication the resident had with the landlord following this, but on 19 May 2023, she called the landlord regarding the outstanding work to her kitchen and her complaint was recorded.
Internal landlord emails, dated 6 Jun 2023, suggest that there were delays in stalling the new kitchen because its contractor had “issues” with the design, scope of work and the quality. The emails acknowledged that there was outstanding work to be completed and blamed a breakdown in communication with the operatives as the reason for the delay.
Internal landlord emails dated 22 June 2023, state that the landlord attended the property to inspect the outstanding works, and a report was going to be completed. While this was a positive step for the landlord to take, it should have been carried out much earlier, given it had been made aware of these issues in March 2023. Further work to the kitchen appears to have been carried out by 3 August 2023.
In its stage 1 complaint response dated 4 July 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint as relating to the works carried out in her kitchen and bathroom. It agreed there had been delays to the works, caused by contractors, but did not address what these were specifically in relation to the kitchen. It failed to acknowledge that the work had taken 40 days longer than expected (excluding the time taken to remedy any defects) and that she had been without a fully functioning kitchen during this time. The landlord offered a total of £300 compensation against all aspects of her complaint, for a lack of communication, delays, and inconvenience.
The landlord’s compensation policy in place at the time, stated that compensation may be appropriate when a tenant suffers from a loss of facilities in the home due to a service failure. The policy was silent on how compensation would be calculated. However, the landlord’s response failed to consider the loss of service when awarding its compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint on 4 July 2023. She was unhappy with the ongoing issues she was experiencing in relation to other matters complained about and she did not feel the compensation offered reflected the extent of the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord carried out further work to the resident’s kitchen on 11 and 12 September 2023. However, from the documentation provided, it is not clear whether these works were completed or if any remained outstanding.
In its stage 2 complaint response dated 24 October 2023, the landlord apologised that it had not resolved the issues in a timely manner. It stated that contractor 1 had gone into receivership in July and this had impacted its ability to deliver the kitchens and bathrooms programmes as scheduled. The landlord also stated that due to disputes over the quality of work, contractor 1 had been unable to complete the works before falling into receivership.
The resident’s kitchen was fitted to a functional level by 13 March 2023 and issues/defects were reported by her soon after but appeared to be ignored by the landlord as there is no record of any follow up with the resident. It was unreasonable for the landlord to cite the cause of delays as being contractor 1, when the landlord had been given plenty of notice of the issues/defects prior to contractor 1 going into receivership. While it conceded that its communications had been “somewhat muddled”, this did not give the resident the confidence that the landlord had taken any learning from this matter.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord offered a total of £500 compensation across all complaints to address the delays. While the landlord’s previous compensation policy had been silent on how it calculated compensation, a new policy had taken effect prior to the stage 2 response being issued.
The landlord’s new compensation policy stated that if a resident experiences a loss of cooking facilities, compensation of £10 per adult per day, and £5 per child per day, may be offered for each day after the target timescale had elapsed. The landlord failed to apply this to the resident’s complaint, and this was unreasonable given it was aware the resident was struggling to prepare food for her children.
The new policy also stated that when a resident experiences a total loss of the kitchen, a 25% reduction in rent may be offered for each day after an initial 48-hour period. During a planned kitchen refit, it would be reasonable for the resident to be without a kitchen for a 2-week period. However, when the resident was left without a functioning kitchen for longer than 2 weeks, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to apply this policy and offer the rent reduction. The landlord again failed to consider the wider impact of its failings on the resident and failed to try and put them right.
Missed appointments were also covered in the new compensation policy, which stated that these would be paid at £10 per missed appointment. The landlord failed to apply this policy in relation to the times contractor 1 had not attended the property. This was particularly unfair given the resident had taken unpaid time from work to allow contractor 1 access. These failings are the opposite outcomes from those stated in the dispute resolution principles of be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
While the landlord did offer to pay the resident the equivalent of 2-weeks loss of pay upon production of evidence of earnings, it failed to address the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused for an extended period.
The version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in place at the time of this complaint stated that “any remedy offered by the landlord must reflect the extent of any service failure and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result.” While the compensation offered went some way to redress the resident, it did not reflect the detriment suffered over a 9-month period and the evident distress this had caused.
The landlord contacted the resident on 11 July 2024 with an offered further £1,450 compensation against all aspects of her complaint, made up of:
1. £500 for the time taken to complete repairs to the bathroom and kitchen.
2. £250 for the lack of care and attention of staff carrying out works.
3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
4. £200 for the time and trouble of having to be present for visits by contractors.
5. £150 for the lack of communication.
6. £100 for missed appointments.
This was well over 17 months after it was put on notice about the initial problems with the works. While this service welcomes the fact the landlord looked to revisit the issue to try and put things right, its compensation offer was over 8 months after the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure on the issue. Considering the time which has passed, this has affected the degree to which the offer puts right the clear failings by the landlord.
The resident accepted she was going to be without a kitchen for 2 weeks and planned accordingly, such as taking time off from work. However, the resident was without a functioning kitchen for 40 days longer than expected, and despite her repeated pleas to the landlord, she was offered no additional support, and no urgency was applied to the outstanding works. This caused the resident great distress, inconvenience, and financial loss, due to having to take further unpaid time from work to allow access for the work to be completed. The situation was aggravated further by 7 missed appointments.
The landlord’s lack of communication with the resident during this time was inappropriate. Her level of communication and the content of the many emails and phone calls that she made would have made it clear to the landlord the impact its failings were having. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord must have had an appreciation of the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble the delayed works to the kitchen had caused her.
Having completed the refit, the further work to remedy poor workmanship and defects dragged on much longer than should have been necessary, with work still being carried out in September 2023, 6 months after the install had been completed. The communications provided by the resident during this period, evidence she was reporting the same issues repeatedly, with little or no response from the landlord. This added to what was already a stressful situation for the resident.
The lack of effective project management, oversight of its contractors and failure to demonstrate empathy or meaningfully put things right has resulted in severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the refit to the resident’s kitchen. An order has been made that the landlord pay £2,040 compensation to the resident, in line with both the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the landlord’s own compensation policy. This is made up of:
1. £800 for loss of cooking facilities after the target timescale had elapsed, as per the landlord’s compensation policy (£10 per adult per day, £5 per child per day, (£10 + £5 + £5) x 40 = £800).
2. £170 (rounded up) compensation based on an equivalent reduction in rent for total loss of kitchen after the target timescale had elapsed, akin to the landlord’s compensation policy. Monthly rent at the time was £508.46 per month, divided by 30 gives an average daily rent of £16.95. 25% of this is £4.24 (40 x £4.24 = £169.60).
3. £70 for missed appointments, as per the landlord’s compensation policy (7 x £10 = £70).
4. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the landlord’s poor communication, repeated problems with work carried out and the time and trouble taken to pursue the matter.

Bathroom refit

The refit of the resident’s bathroom was also part of a planned programme of works, with the kitchen being completed first. As the resident’s property contained a bathroom and a downstairs cloakroom, both rooms were included in the works.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy categorises replacement bathrooms as “planned maintenance” but does not give any scales for the completion of such work. It would be reasonable to expect the bathroom and cloakroom refits to be completed within 2-week timescale, given the inconvenience caused to the tenant having no bathroom. It would have been reasonable of the landlord to attempt to minimise the amount of disruption caused to the resident, given the previous problems with the kitchen and it knew she was struggling with 2 small children in the property.
On 20 April 2023, contractor 1 attended the property to discuss the bathroom refit with the resident. The resident recalled that contractor 1 gave her reassurances that a new team would be attending to the bathroom, and she would not have the same problems she experienced with the kitchen. Contractor 1 arranged to start the work on 26 April 2023. Given the landlord was aware of the problems already experienced by the resident, and the same contractor was involved, it would have been reasonable to expect that the landlord would also visit to provide oversight of its contractor, reassurance for the resident and to repair any damage to the landlord and tenant relationship which may have been caused by the poor execution of the kitchen refit. This did not happen.
On 25 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord by phone to say that her bathroom was being ripped out the next day, but she had not been sighted on what style and colour of fittings were being installed. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that planned maintenance works such as this often include an element of customer choice. Given the work was scheduled to commence the following day, any choice the resident was allowed to make should have been made at a much earlier stage to prevent delays in sourcing the materials. This was a failing and evidenced a lack of planning on the landlord’s part.
The resident also requested the landlord contact her back urgently, as contractor 1 was pressurising her to get the works started but she had not been happy with the standard of work carried out in the kitchen and wanted to discuss this with the landlord. It is not clear from the documents provided whether the landlord contacted her back.
The works to the bathroom started on 26 April 2023. Following this, the resident contacted the landlord on numerous occasions to report problems with the work being carried out. These included:
1. 26 April 2023 – Contractor 1 arrived 4 hours late and damaged the stair handrail when removing the bath.
2. 27 April 2023 – The new bathroom suite had been fitted but did not match.
3. 28 April 2023 – The resident contacted the landlord 3 times by phone, then emailed it to report the sink and toilet did not fit in the spaces they were supposed to.
Due to the gaps in the landlord’s record keeping, it is unclear whether the landlord contacted the resident or took any action. The resident contacted the landlord again by email on 2 May 2024, after not hearing back from her previous calls and emails. The lack of communication from the landlord was a continued and significant failing, especially after the previously problems experienced by the resident.
Contractor 1 attended the property on 2 May 2023, and informed the resident that a wall would need to be built for the bathroom sink to be fitted. The resident pointed out to the operative that the measurements they were making were incorrect as they were using the wrong size sink, but the operative dismissed her comments. This resulted in the resident emailing the landlord for a second time that day, complaining of the issues in her bathroom and the lack of contact from the landlord, despite her repeated requests. Again, there is no documentary evidence to show when the landlord contacted the resident back or what action it took.
The resident’s own notes suggest that the cloakroom was started on 5 May 2023 and was completed on 11 May 2023. However, the wrong sink had been fitted and the tiles fell from the walls as they had not been grouted, causing further work to be carried out on 15 and 16 May 2023.
Furthermore, on 9 May 2023, contractor 1 discovered the sink would not fit in the bathroom because it had been measured wrong. This was a preventable failing, given the resident had pointed this out at the time the measurements were taken.
The work to the bathroom and cloakroom should have reasonably been completed by 12 May 2023 (allowing for 2 bank holidays). On 15 May 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to again report the problems she was experiencing with contractor 1. She described the quality of work as “absolutely shocking” and stated she needed “someone to step in and help me”. The resident stated the situation was causing her distress and anxiety and she should not have to deal with these failings on a daily basis. The distress the resident was experiencing was clearly evident from the email, yet there is no record of any contact from the landlord or action taken at this point, causing the resident to contact the landlord again the following day.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 17 May 2023, to advise that contractor 1 would not continue work until the landlord had been out to inspect the property. She stated she was still without a complete bathroom and the quality of the work carried out was poor. The resident made the landlord aware that she would not be available the following week and was due to start a new job on 6 June 2023. Therefore, contractor 1 had 2 days left to complete the bathroom refit to avoid further delays. The landlord responded and arranged a visit to the property with contractor 1 for 23 May 2023. Given the ongoing issues and the lack of bathroom facilities and the disruption to the resident, it is concerning that the landlord did not deem it appropriate for the visit to have been sooner.
The resident complained to the landlord again on 19 May 2023. She described the distress and inconvenience she had suffered since work began on her bathroom. She stated she was unable to use the shower, the wash basin was not secured to the wall, and no one was getting back to her to try and resolve the issues.
The landlord visited the property on 23 May 2023 as it planned. Internal landlord emails recorded there had been poor preparation by contractor 1, substandard work and incorrect materials had been used. Contractor 1 emailed the landlord to say it could not attend the visit and that the resident had denied them access to the property on 16 May 2023, which contributed to the delays. Contractor 1 also alleged that some of their operatives did not want to return because the resident had complained about their work. This appears to be the first time the landlord had been made aware of access issues to the property, which suggests a breakdown in communication between the landlord and its contractor.
While it is recognised that the resident’s period of absence from the property and refusal to allow the contractor 1 access may have added to the delays, the refit should have been completed in advance of this. Furthermore, the resident was clearly distressed with the continuous substandard work that was being completed and desperate to obtain landlord intervention. This is evidenced in the many communications sent to the landlord in the period leading up to this.
The landlord liaised with contractor 1 on 25 May 2023, and compiled a list of stipulations for the resident to agree to in order for contractor 1 to return and finish the works. These were communicated with the resident on 26 May 2023. It would appear that contractor 1 never returned to complete the work, presumably from going into receivership, as the landlord attended the property on 13 June 2023 with contractor 2, to assess the work needed to complete the refit. While at the property, the landlord offered to board the resident’s bathroom as compensation for problems she had experienced, which she accepted.
At this point, the landlord knew the resident had been without a fully functioning bathroom for her and her children for almost 2 months. While it could not have foreseen the delays caused by contractor 1 going into receivership, it did know that new materials would have to be ordered before the bathroom could be completed. There is no evidence that the landlord considered it appropriate to offer a temporary decant as is provided for by its under its tenancy management policy. The failure to do so, in light of all the delay and inconvenience experienced by the resident previously in the process, was unreasonable.
Contractor 2 began work at the property on 27 June 2023, 2 months after the work had originally started. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 July 2023, and while it apologised for the service the resident had received, it stated that all work had come to a stop, and it was waiting for new materials to arrive. This was incorrect, as contractor 2 had already started work with the materials. The response gave the resident the impression that the landlord had not taken her complaint seriously, causing her to escalate it.
The resident’s own notes recorded a number of issues with the work being carried out by contractor 2. This included:
1. 4 July 2023 – operatives arrived at the property and did not know what they were doing and left a brief time later.
2. 21 July 2023 – operatives did not take tiles off bathroom wall as instructed by landlord, they put the panels over the top, which were “wonky”.
3. 22 July 2023 – resident queried the schedule of work with the operatives and was shouted at. Floor covered in mud, plastic, and pieces of smashed tile.
The resident reported this to the landlord on 24 July 2023. She explained that the landlord had given contractor 2 a list of work to be carried out and contractor 2 was not following it. The resident stated the tiling was uneven and she was still unable to use the bathroom to wash. She then made a further call to the landlord the following day to request an urgent update and requested to be put up in a hotel due to the lack of bathroom facilities.
The landlord’s tenancy management policy states a temporary decant could be provided during major works to a tenant’s home that would result in severe disruption. It would be reasonable to conclude that no access to a bath or shower would cause sever disruption to the resident. The landlord does not appear to have considered this policy despite the obvious prompt by the resident’s request or supported the resident any further. This was a failing by the landlord which caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
Contractor 2 returned to the property on 28 and 31 July to rectify the work they had already carried out. On 31 July 2023, the resident reported to the landlord the work still was not completed and the operatives had admitted they did not know what they were doing. She stated she was upset and anxious and she was having to take her family somewhere else to bathe on a regular basis. The landlord’s lack of positive action following this information is evidence that it failed to acknowledge the urgency of the situation. This prompted the resident to make 3 further calls to it on 1 August 2023. While the landlord called back and left a voicemail the same day, it appears to have taken no action to prioritise making the resident’s bathroom functional.
On 2 August 2023, the resident informed the landlord that she still could not use the bath because there was a leak. Internal landlord emails suggest that it did not believe there was an issue with the bath and on 3 August 2023, the resident stated she had no faith in contractor 2 and had refused them access to continue work. The landlord visited on 4 August 2023, to assess the situation. It was confirmed that there was a leak to the bath via the handles, which could be managed until it had been repaired.
During the visit, the landlord drew up another list of outstanding work to be completed. Contractor 3 attended the property on 14 August 2023 and agreed to take on the work, which started on 11 September 2023.
The resident had been without a functioning bathroom for 4 months. While her refusal to allow contractor 2 to continue work may have added to the delays, her frustration with the situation was understandable. She had repeatedly reported her concerns over the quality of work to the landlord, but appeared to have gotten little response. Internal landlord emails dated 15 August 2023, suggest the resident was not the only tenant in the area to experience problems with contractor 2.
Given the experience the resident had with the work to her kitchen, it is understandable that the prolonged works to the bathroom caused her further distress and inconvenience. The resident needed to take further time off work in September to allow a third contractor (contractor 3) to complete the works, but this could not be arranged without a weeks’ notice. The time off work the resident had to take to facilitate the work caused by the delays to refit was unpaid, which caused the resident financial loss.
The materials for the work were ordered on 14 August 2023 after contractor 3’s visit. This should have allowed ample time for contractor 3 to be prepared with the correct materials to complete the works within the 2-week timeframe advised to the resident. However, this was not the case, instead the following occurred:
1. 13 September 2023 – the wrong trims arrived for the bathroom.
2. 14 September 2023 – the bathroom wall panels were cut uneven, and a carpenter had to be arranged to recut them.
3. 26 September 2023 – Work had to stop on the bathroom until the correct materials could be obtained.
The resident reported the problems to the landlord on 26 September 2023, the day the works should have been completed. The landlord stated works could be completed on 28 September 2023, but the resident was unavailable, so a date of 3 October 2023 was agreed.
While contractor 3 attended the property on 3 October 2023, the work was not completed, and a further visit was required. The landlord informed the resident that contractor 3 would reattend on 6 October 2023, to complete any making good work. It is not clear from the documentation provided whether this visit happened, or the extent of the work involved.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 October 2023 and acknowledged that there was work that remained outstanding to the resident’s property. It apologised for the delays in resolving issues and reiterated this was impacted by contractor 1 going into receivership in July 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns over the quality of work of contractor 1 and 2, and stated contractor 3 was appointed to carry out the remaining work over a 2-week period.
The landlord acknowledged there was a change in specification of the trim required for the boarding, which was not available at short notice. It said this delayed the work for a week and when work recommenced the resident reported further issues with the quality of work, resulting in the resident refusing contractor 3 access in early October 2023. It is not clear from the documents provided when this occurred, or what the landlord did with reports of further poor-quality work.
The response said that the resident had declined to have the works finished by the landlord. It also stated that as the bathroom works were not fully finished, there was a risk of causing water damage which could lead to damp and mould growth if left uncompleted for any length of time. The bathroom works had been “uncompleted” for 6 months at the point of this response, despite the efforts of the resident to chase the matter on a regular basis.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £500 compensation across all aspects of her complaint, for the delays to her complaint response and “starting the works”, and decoration vouchers of an unknown quantity.
As stated above, the landlord’s new compensation policy provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of when compensation may be given. These examples also include the complete loss of the bathroom and an additional payment for loss bathing facilities after a specified timescale for a repair had elapsed. The landlord failed to apply the policy when calculating its compensation offer. This was a significant failing given the resident had been without a fully functioning bathroom for a prolonged period and the landlord had the ability to use its new policy to appropriately provide the standards that could be used to put things right.
The landlord’s offer of compensation also failed to recognise the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident. It is apparent from the documentation provided that the resident experienced further problems getting the bathroom finished after the stage 2 response was issued. As mentioned above, the landlord’s further offer of compensation, dated 11 July, was 8 months after the stage 2 response was issued and still did not consider the new compensation policy.
Prior to the bathroom refit starting, the resident had already experienced distress and inconvenience from the works to the kitchen. Despite being given reassurance that she would not experience the same problems with the bathroom, it is clear that similar problems were evident at an early stage of the works. It is also evident that the resident’s concerns were warranted. The landlord recorded poor quality work upon inspection, with each new contractor having to repeat work that had already been done but was substandard.
The resident’s contact with the landlord throughout pleaded for help in resolving the matter, but due to gaps in the landlord’s record keeping, it was not clear whether she received a response or what action the landlord took to get the issues rectified.
It would have been reasonable for a planned bathroom refit to be completed within a 2-week period. This would have given the resident a fully functional bathroom by 12 May 2023 (allowing for 2 bank holidays). It is clear from the stage 2 response, that as of 24 October 2023, the bathroom was not completed as the landlord highlighted the risks of water damage.
Leaving the resident without a functioning bathroom for 165 days beyond the expected completion date was a serious failing and not only caused the resident distress and general inconvenience, but specifically she also had to travel to her parent’s house on a regular basis to use their bathing facilities.
The combined series of failings and impact on the resident leads to a determination of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the refit to the resident’s bathroom. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £3,075 compensation to the resident for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy, made up of:
1. £825 for loss of bathing/shower facilities, as per the landlord’s compensation policy (£5 per day per adult x 165 days after target time had elapsed = £825)
2. £750 (rounded up) for total loss of bathroom after a reasonable target timescale had elapsed, as per the landlord’s compensation policy. Monthly rent at the time was £544.05 per month, divided by 30 gives an average daily rent of £18.12, 25% of this is £4.53 (165 days x £4.24 = £747.45).
3. £1,500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the landlord’s poor communication, repeated problems with work carried out and the time and trouble taken to pursue the matter.

Reports of damaged and missing items

It is not the role of this Ombudsman to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is the role of this Service to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
During the kitchen refit, the resident had purchased her own tiles to be fitted in agreement with the landlord. On 10 February 2023, contractor 1 attended the property while the resident was out to dispose of rubbish from the kitchen refit. When the resident returned to the property, she found that while some of the rubbish was still there, boxes of new her tiles that had been stored in the garden had been taken. The resident states she called contractor 1, who informed her that they would return them on Monday (13 February 2023).
The tiles were not returned, and on 24 February 2023, one of the newly installed kitchen cupboards fell from the wall, causing the resident’s kettle to break. The resident informed the contractor and on 24 March 2023, the contractor contacted the resident and asked for a copy of the invoice for the tiles and a picture of the kettle that needed to be replaced. While the contractor provided a replacement kettle on 20 April 2023, the replacement also failed to work, and the tiles were not returned.
On 27 April 2023, the resident complained to contractor 1 that her carpets were getting ruined due to no floor protection being used. On 12 May 2023, she further complained to contractor 1 that one of its operatives had managed to get white gloss over her carpet and wooden blinds. On 16 May 2023, the resident noted that “chunks of wall” were missing in the hallway after contractor 1 had been cutting tiles. It is not clear whether this was reported to contractor 1.
The damage caused to the resident’s property, and the missing tiles, were not reported to the landlord at the time. These details were also omitted from the resident’s formal complaint made in May 2023. However, it is clear from internal landlord emails, dated 6 June 2023, that it had been made aware of the broken kettle from contractor 1.
On 28 July 2023, contractor 2 attended the property to remove rubbish from the property during the bathroom refit. The resident states that along with the rubbish, they also took new decking that was securely wrapped next to her gate. It is not clear whether the resident reported this to contractor 2.
The landlord was only put on notice that there was other instances of damage and items missing from the property on 4 August 2023. In an email to the landlord, the resident stated she would prepare “a list of damages” caused to her property and items that had been taken. The resident also requested that the landlord repair or replace those items.
It is not clear when or how this list was provided to the landlord. However, in its stage 2 response dated 24 October 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s potential claim. It advised that the best way to claim would be through her home insurance or she could place a claim through the landlord’s insurers. It also set out the process the resident needed to follow to make the claim.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that she is responsible insuring the contents if her home and all her personal effects. The landlord’s compensation policy (2019) states that compensation may be payable in circumstances where the resident has suffered as loss from a service failure, such as damage to a carpet by a negligent operative. The policy also states that compensation awards for damage or loss would be dealt with by the landlord’s insurance provider. In these circumstances it would have been reasonable for the landlord to direct the resident’s claim to their insurers.
If the loss and damage experienced by the resident was caused by the landlord’s contractor, it would have been unreasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to claim on her own home insurance. This would have been unfair to the resident as any claim on a policy may affect the resident’s future premium and/or require then to pay an excess.
However, the landlord’s compensation policy was updated on 19 October 2023, prior to the stage 2 response being issued. The updated policy states that if the landlord is at fault for damage or loss, it will take steps to put it right, which could include replacing the resident’s belongings. The updated policy removed the insurer as being the only avenue by which the resident could receive compensation for damage or loss.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord considered the new compensation policy, or if it did, its rationale for not applying it. Given the other failings admitted by the landlord and the length of time it had taken to deal with the complaint, it would have been fair for the landlord to apply its new compensation policy. This would have prevented any further distress being caused to the resident and would have brought this aspect of the complaint to a close much sooner.
Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of damaged and missing items. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £150 compensation to the resident for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Record keeping

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of its record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Only limited information was received, which did not include significant items such as:
1. Records of telephone calls and emails between the landlord’s surveyor and the resident during both refits.
2. Records of telephone calls and emails between the landlord and the resident following each request for help she made.
3. The complete schedule of work carried out at the property and at what times. The records provided to this Service were lacking in detail, outcomes or sometimes completion dates, making them of limited value for the purposes of review.
The majority of the information supplied covering the period of January 2023 to May 2023 was provided by the resident, who had maintained records of all communication with the landlord and its contractors. While this Service appreciates that times of staff turnover can bring about challenges in record keeping, a landlord must have robust systems in place to ensure that all records of communication and information are secured and preserved. In this case, this did not happen, and the landlord was unable to provide all relevant documents to this Service upon request.
Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord acted in line with its obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations at the time. The failure to keep accurate records has caused the resident further inconvenience and time in getting this complaint resolved as she has needed to provide her own records of correspondence. Furthermore, the landlord’s poor standard of record keeping is likely to have undermined the resident’s confidence in its ability to have a competent complaints process and the general delivery of its services.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £200 compensation to the resident for the distress, time and trouble caused by these failures. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

A landlord’s complaint handling process is an essential aspect of its overall service delivery provision. An effective complaints process will enable a landlord to identify and address service delivery issues in a timely manner. It will also provide learning for future service provision.
The landlord’s own communications log shows the resident called it on 25 January, 27 January, and 13 February 2023 to express her dissatisfaction with the work that was being carried out to her kitchen. The call logs recorded the resident was “distraught”, she was having to take extended periods of unpaid leave to accommodate the work, and she lacked amenities for cooking and washing. The log also recorded calls from the resident on 15 February, 21 February and 25 April 2023 requesting an urgent call back from the landlord’s surveyor in relation to problems she was having with the ongoing works.
The resident sent 2 further emails to the landlord on 2 May 2023, reiterating her frustration with the ongoing problems she was experiencing. She stated she was unable to contact the landlord’s surveyor and felt that she had no other choice but to contact the Ombudsman and a solicitor.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as, “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.” The landlord failed to identify the resident’s first expression of dissatisfaction in January 2023 as a complaint and on 6 further occasions after that. These were significant failings as it caused the resident further distress and inconvenience in trying to get the matter resolved.
The resident contacted the landlord by email again on 15 and 16 May 2023, complaining that the work carried out was unacceptable and the ongoing situation was causing her “distress and anxiety”. In her emails, the resident suggested that the landlord’s surveyor had been previously informed that she wanted the matter dealt with as a complaint, but no action was taken. The landlord has provided no documentary evidence to support this. However, under the landlord’s policy, it was inappropriate that the resident’s first call in January 2023 was not handled as a complaint.
The landlord first recorded the resident’s complaint on 19 May 2023, following a further phone call from her. Notes of the call recorded that she was unhappy with the amount of time the refits were taking and the quality of the workmanship, and that these had been reported this 6 times previously. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 26 May 2023 and advised it would aim to provide a response before 12 June 2023.
The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. While the acknowledgement was sent 5 working days after the complaint was first recorded, it was 83 working days after the first expression of dissatisfaction was made and this was an overall delay that was likely to have further damaged the landlord/tenant relationship and the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s complaint process.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 July 2023. It contacted the resident on 7 June 2023 to inform her that the response would be delayed until it had visited the property. However, it did not provide her with a new date to expect the response. This was a failing and caused the resident to chase her complaint on 3 July 2023, prior to her receiving the response.
The landlord’s complaint policy states it will issue its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. It does not state whether the 10 working days is from the date of the complaint or the acknowledgement. However, in line with Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) that was in place at the time, this should have been from the date the complaint was logged (paragraph 5.1). The landlord’s policy also acknowledges that some complaints may take longer to resolve, and if this is the case, the landlord will liaise with the resident to agree a new time scale.
The stage 1 response was issued 30 days after the complaint was logged and 108 days after the first expression of dissatisfaction. This was an inappropriate delay and was aggravated in the circumstances as the resident had been experiencing issues for over 5 months.
In its response the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns around communication and apologised for its failings and stated a report of outstanding works had been completed. It said once materials had arrived, it would be back in touch to arrange a convenient time for the works to take place. The landlord offered the resident £300 compensation for the delays to the work, the lack of communication and the inconvenience she had experienced.
The landlord’s compensation offer did not go far enough to acknowledge the time and trouble it had caused the resident to pursue the complaint, or the extent of the distress its failings had caused. The communications between the parties provide evidence of the impact of the many delays in the process upon the resident.
The resident escalated her complaint on 4 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged her escalation request on 1 August 2023, 20 working days after her escalation request had been received. It stated it would aim to provide her a full response by 30 August 2023. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will respond to escalation requests within 5 working days. This was another failing by the landlord and caused the resident to feel further ignored.
The landlord contacted the resident on 11 September 2023 and said it required an extension to its stage 2 response time. It stated it would aim to provide a response to her by the end of 15 September 2023. However, the resident had previously been informed that her response would be received by 30 August 2023. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to issue the update 2 weeks earlier to better manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 24 October 2023. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will issue its stage 2 response within 10 working days unless it agrees an extended time period with the resident. While it did update the resident to a delay in its response, this was not done so in a timely manner and it still failed to meet the newly proposed date. The response was also issued 79 days after the landlord received the resident’s escalation. This was a further failing which added to the resident’s distress and frustration and delayed resolution to her complaint.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £500 compensation, £250 of which was for the delays to its stage 2 response. This offer does not reflect the considerable distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble the resident experienced chasing up her complaint over a prolonged period or put right the considerable loss of confidence in the landlord for the part of her complaint which it had sole responsibility to deliver.
The landlord missed 7 opportunities to record the resident’s complaint at an earlier stage and intervene. This caused the resident a great deal of distress and inconvenience, which was highly evident from her expressions of dissatisfaction and ultimately caused a prolonged delay to resolving her complaint. Both its complaint responses were issued outside of the timescales given in its policy and the compensation offered in these responses did not reflect the extent and prolonged detriment suffered by the resident.
Therefore, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order has been made that landlord pay £500 compensation to the resident for the time, trouble and distress these failings caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the refit to the resident’s kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the refit to the resident’s bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of damaged and missing items.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology, from a senior executive for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £5,965 compensation, inclusive of monies already paid (not including vouchers), made up of:
  1. £2,040 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its failures in its handling of the kitchen refit.
  2. £3,075 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its failures in its handling of the bathroom refit.
  3. £150 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its failures in its handling of reports of damaged and missing items.
  4. £200 for the time, trouble, and distress caused by its failures in record keeping.
  5. £500 for the time, trouble and distress caused by its failures in complaint handling.
3. Carry out an inspection of the kitchen, bathroom and downstairs cloakroom of the property, to produce a report on any remaining issues or defects. The landlord is also ordered to ensure that these works are completed (and to provide a schedule of the required works to this Service and the resident) or provide evidence to this Service that no outstanding works remain.
4. Liaise with the resident regarding the damage and loss suffered to her personal belongings, with a view to refunding her accordingly. The landlord should avoid placing onerous evidence requirements on the resident if it failed to follow its correct procedure in the first instance. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service how it proposes to resolve this situation, and the details of how it will assist the resident to raise a formal complaint if its solution is not to her satisfaction.
5. Liaise with the resident regarding the outstanding damage caused to the property caused by the work that was carried out and complete the repairs that are still outstanding or provide evidence that this has already been done.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should conduct a review of the key failures highlighted in this report. Within 8 weeks, the landlord should present this review to its senior leadership team and provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should focus on:
1. The steps it will take to ensure the continuity of information and evidence recorded on its systems during an interruption to service caused by staff turnover.
2. How it will improve its ability to ensure accurate records are maintained through its process and knowledge and information management systems. The landlord should ensure emphasis is placed on its ability to be able to record and review contact with its tenants.
3. How it can ensure it has effective oversight of its contractors and quality assurance of repairs, particularly where residents have previously been in receipt of poor customer service or are in dispute about quality standards.
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 Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met.
In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the orders within the time scales set out above.