Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

West Kent Housing Association (202121456)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121456

West Kent Housing Association

6 June 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Installation of gas central heating at the resident’s property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. In February 2020 the landlord’s gas installation contractor conducted a survey at the resident’s property with a view to replacing her storage heaters with gas central heating. On 12 July 2021 the contractor installed the gas central heating. On 17 July 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord as there were areas of her carpet missing following the installation. She said she had not been told that this would happen and that hers was a low–income family and could not afford to replace carpets. In further emails to the landlord she explained that the amount of decorating required was a lot more than the ”touching up” she had  been told would be needed and that electrical trunking had also been left on the walls.
  3. In its stage one complaint response on 3 August 2021, the landlord explained that the areas missing in the carpet were from where the storage heaters used to be (and the carpet had been cut to fit around the heaters when it was originally laid). It explained that carpets were the resident’s responsibility but that it would make a £100 goodwill gesture “in light of the inconvenience”. Regarding redecoration, the landlord said “There will always be decoration needed when changing from one heating source to another as any unit will not be the same size or possibly the same location” and sent the resident a decorating voucher. It also explained that the trunking was not routinely removed and whilst it could be removed, this may lead to the need for more redecoration.
  4. On 25 August 2021 the resident escalated her complaint as she said she had not been made aware that she would be left with any “damage” to the carpet and that the £100 goodwill gesture was not enough to replace the carpets. On 7 September 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to say it would not be escalating her complaint as the stage one response was “in line with [its] policy.” It explained that the £100 was a goodwill gesture for inconvenience and was not intended to replace the carpet, as its repairs policy states that carpets are the resident’s responsibility.
  5. The resident contacted this Service on 16 December 2021. She said the reason the landlord had installed gas central heating was because hers was a low–income family and it would be cheaper than storage heaters. However, after long delays with the installation, she had been left with the added expense of having to replace the carpets and she was unhappy had not been made aware of that beforehand.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. One of the issues the resident has asked the Ombudsman to look at is the delay in installing the gas central heating, however the delay was not mentioned in the resident’s original complaint to the landlord. Under Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service will not investigate complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. Therefore, this assessment will not cover the delay to the installation of the gas central heating. The resident would need to contact the landlord regarding the delay and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint about this issue through the landlord’s complaints process if she wishes to take it further.

Installation of gas central heating at the resident’s property

  1. Prior to installing gas central heating at the resident’s home, the landlord’s gas contractor acted appropriately by conducting a survey of the property. At this stage it would have been reasonable to have made the resident aware that she may be left with gaps in her flooring once the storage heaters were removed. In information provided to this Service by the landlord, the contractor has said they would have told the resident that they would position the new radiators where the old storage heaters were, where possible, to reduce the need for decoration and would have “mentioned at this stage that although [he could] limit the need for decoration unfortunately [they could not] do anything regarding the removal of the storage heaters leaving a gap in the carpet or laminate floor.”
  2. The resident has said that she was told by the contractor that some redecoration would be needed but not as much as she was eventually left with and that she was not advised that there would be gaps left in the carpet. It would have been helpful if the landlord had kept a written record of what was discussed at the visit. However, there is no written record of what the resident was told. When there are conflicting accounts of what happened, with insufficient evidence to confirm either way what was said during the visit, it would not be possible for the Ombudsman, as an independent and impartial arbiter, to establish whether the contractor advised the resident that there would be gaps left in the carpet once the storage heaters were removed or the level of redecoration that would be needed. It is also not clear whether the resident would have acted differently and refused to allow the heating system to be installed if she was made aware of the potential damage to the flooring.
  3. In her original complaint, other than the issues with the carpet and redecoration, the resident stated that she was very happy with the gas central heating installation. The landlord has taken appropriate steps to ensure that in future, as well as informing residents of the potential impact to their décor and carpeting due to gas central heating installation, it will also keep a record on its system of what information was discussed. This Service considers that to be an appropriate response to this complaint and as such there was no service failure by the landlord in respect of its installation of gas central heating at the resident’s property.

Complaint handling 

  1. When the resident raised her complaint on 17 July 2021, the landlord acted appropriately by contacting the gas contractor to investigate whether the carpet had been cut during the heating installation and whether it could remove the trunking from the wall. In its stage one complaint response on 3 August it took appropriate steps to explain that the carpet had not been cut and the gaps were from where the storage heaters were previously. Its stance that the carpet was the responsibility of the resident was reasonable as its “Maintaining your home” policy confirms that residents “are responsible for replacing floor coverings such as carpets and laminate/wood flooring unless they were fitted by [the landlord] “and there was no suggestion that the landlord had originally fitted the carpets.  
  2. As the landlord was not responsible for the carpet and it had not been damaged by its contractor the landlord acted beyond its strict obligations by offering a £100 goodwill gesture to recognise the inconvenience caused to the resident in having to replace her carpets. The landlord also acted reasonably by providing decorating vouchers, as its “Maintaining your home” policy says that although the tenant is responsible for all internal decoration, if the landlord causes damage then it will either decorate or provide decorating vouchers. The landlord also took appropriate steps to explain why it does not routinely remove trunking.
  3. The landlord’s stage one response addressed the majority of the points the resident had raised, however it would also have been appropriate for it to have addressed her point that she had not being informed that there would be areas of carpet missing or that the carpet would need replacing. Although the landlord’s explanation of where the missing areas had come from was reasonable, it did not address the fact that the resident was saying that she had not been told that there would be any carpet missing (regardless of the reasons it was missing). Even if there was nothing the landlord could have done to prevent the missing areas being exposed once the storage heaters were removed, making the resident aware that this would happen beforehand would have better managed her expectations. As the resident had raised this concern in her complaint and the landlord failed to address it in its stage one complaint response, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
  4. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states that “When a resident seeks to escalate a complaint the landlord should consider: what the escalation review will be about i.e. why the resident remains dissatisfied, and whether any part of the complaint been resolved” along with “what evidence needs to be gathered i.e. comments from those involved, relevant policies and contemporaneous records, inspections etc.” The resident made a request to escalate her complaint on 25 August 2021 and explained again that she was not happy that she had not been made aware beforehand that the carpet may be “damaged” and need replacing, which she could not afford. She pointed out that the £100 goodwill gesture was not enough to replace the carpet. As the landlord’s stage one complaint response had not addressed whether the resident had been made aware that the carpet would have gaps in once the storage heaters were removed, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have escalated the complaint, investigated what the contractor had informed the resident regarding the carpet, and addressed that issue in its stage two complaint response.
  5. However, the landlord refused to escalate the complaint as it said the stage one response was “reasonable and in line with our policy.” The landlord’s complaint policy states that there may be instances where it does not escalate a complaint, including when “the response at stage one is considered reasonable and in line with our policies.” This Service would agree that its decision not to replace the carpet was in line with the landlord’s “Maintaining your home” policy as the carpet was not damaged by the landlord and was the responsibility of the resident. However, as the issue of whether the resident had been informed about the condition the carpet would be in, following the heating installation had not been addressed in its stage one complaint response the complaint should have been escalated in order to address this and the landlord failed to do so. This was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
  6. The landlord has since taken reasonable steps to investigate what the contractor told the resident and, as there was no written record of the conversation has advised its employees to leave clear records on its system of anything discussed during a visit in future.
  7. However, the landlord should also pay the resident £100 for any distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which suggests that we may award between £50 and £250 in cases where there has been service failure by the landlord resulting in an impact on the complainant but where the service failure was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint. In this case the landlord’s failure to escalate the complaint and to fully address it would have caused inconvenience to the resident but did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its installation of gas central heating at the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £100 compensation for its complaint handling service failure, within four weeks of the date of this decision.
  2. This payment is in addition to the £100 previously offered by the landlord through its complaints procedure.