York Housing Association Limited (202002635)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002635

York Housing Association Limited

14 June 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports that the property had not met lettable standards;
2. the resident’s reports of repairs needed to her property;
3. kitchen upgrade works;
4. the resident’s requests for it to consider her circumstances and offer appropriate support.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured non-shorthold tenant whose tenancy began on 9 July 2019. The landlord has described the property as a one-bedroom house.
The landlord has noted that the resident reported that she had anxiety and depression when she applied for the property and that she is unable to work due to a long-term illness.
The tenancy agreement requires that the landlord ‘keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises’, including ‘doors and door frames’ and ‘plasterwork’ but ‘not including internal painting and decoration’. It is also obliged to ‘keep in good repair and proper working order’ installations such as water pipes, baths and central heating.
The landlord has a repairs policy that sets out its obligations to:
1. complete or make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours, complete standard repairs within 20 working days and complete major repairs within 60 working days and
2. make adjustments to service delivery for residents who are vulnerable.
The landlord has a lettable standard policy that sets minimum standards that a property should meet before letting, including:
1. substantial repairs should be carried out within 4 weeks and prior to tenancy commencement
2. the kitchen minimum standard requires space for a cooker and fridge, undamaged double base units (two) and wall units (two), connections for a washing machine, a stainless steel sink and adequate water supply
3. the bathroom minimum standard requires an adequate water supply, a serviceable and clean bath and WC, seals and two courses of tiles around the bath and an undamaged floor covering
4. provision of either gas central heating or electric storage heating with a gas safety inspection certificate issued when the property is empty
5. providing the incoming tenant with two sets of keys for lockable doors
6. a list of repairs to be completed to be provided to the incoming tenant with a follow up visit within 4-6 weeks to check progress.
The landlord has a complaints policy that requires it to respond to a stage one complaint within 20 working days of receipt of the complaint. It says it will escalate the complaint to a panel if the resident remains dissatisfied. The resident is required to be invited to the panel within five working days and the final complaint response should be issued within 15 days of the panel.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s records show that it capped the gas at the property on 14 May 2019 and conducted a ‘turn on and test’ on 16 July 2019. A gas safety record document was produced that showed the property, including the boiler, had passed the inspection. In the meantime, the landlord took void photos of the property on 18 June 2019:
1. the kitchen photos show that none of the three sockets visible in the photo had been painted on and that there was a stainless steel sink, spaces for white goods and kitchen units (ground and wall level)
2. the bathroom photos show that there was sealant around the bath and tiles from the bath to the ceiling.
The landlord wrote to residents in the area on 4 June 2019 to advise that contractors would shortly be in contact to make arrangements for bathroom and kitchen upgrade works.
The landlord’s repairs records show that the resident made a report on 29 July 2019 of tripping at the back door. The records show that it raised a repairs job to renew the back door on 9 September 2019 and completed this work on 20 September 2019.
The landlord wrote to residents in the area on 7 October 2019 to apologise that the major works contractor had pulled out so it would need to re-tender for new contractors. It estimated that the work would most likely not be done until after Christmas.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it raised jobs on 12 November 2019:
1. due to a leaking toilet cistern and/or leaking radiator that was entering the kitchen – it recorded this job as completed on 19 November 2019
2. due to a report that tiles near the kitchen window had fallen away from the wall – it recorded this job as completed on 19 November 2019
3. to attend to a washing machine plug socket and cooker switch – it recorded this job as completed on 18 December 2019 and noted that the resident had painted the sockets with white paint.
The landlord’s repairs records show that jobs were raised on 18 November 2019 to attend to a burst radiator pipe and damaged ceiling. It recorded that it attended to the burst on 18 November 2019 and raised a job to replace the radiator which it did on 20 November 2019. It also recorded that a leaking boiler was remedied on 19 November 2019 with a new condensate trap having been required.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 November 2019. She noted that she had moved in during July 2019 but there had been failings by the landlord as follows:
1. it had not provided a moving in pack, including safety certificates
2. the boiler had leaked, causing a ceiling to fall in and damage to her washer/drier
3. the electrics upstairs did not work properly
4. windows and a door had been fitted but the door did not fit correctly
5. the kitchen had not been renewed as promised.
The landlord responded to the resident on 29 November 2019. It advised that:
1. the moving in pack was given to the resident and included the tenancy agreement but would not usually have included safety certificates – it said it had now given her copies of these
2. she should make a claim on her insurance for the washer/drier
3. the electrics had been tested during the void period and a more recent inspection had found that the resident had altered the upstairs lighting circuit without permission so its contractors would attend on 9 December 2019 to put this right and re-charge the resident
4. it would assess the back door next time one of its staff members attended
5. the original kitchen contractor had pulled out (as it advised her in October 2019) so it now hoped to be able to install the kitchen by March 2020.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 December 2019. She alleged that the landlord had failed to keep her safe in regard to two leaks and unsafe electrics. She said the boiler leak had been outstanding since July 2019 and that she had reported this verbally. She added that she could not cook due to void electrics and that she wanted the landlord to arrange for her washer/drier to be fixed.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it raised a job on 18 December 2019 in response to a running boiler overflow pipe. It noted completion of this job on 19 December 2019 with a record showing that a fill valve had been isolated.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 December 2019, following a meeting that day. It advised that:
1. the rear door required adjustment which it would schedule an appointment for
2. a job had been raised to attend to loose bedroom floor boards on 23 December 2019
3. the boiler was working correctly and should need no further adjustment and the living room radiator was not found to be leaking
4. the kitchen was still on order
5. the resident advised the cooker was working following attendance by its electrician.
The landlord’s boiler repair records show that it fitted a new thermostatic radiator valve on 3 January 2020.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 January 2020. She raised concerns that her boiler had leaked twice and her cooker had been incorrectly condemned when there was actually a fault with the electrics.
The landlord’s repairs records show that a job was raised on 15 January 2020 to adjust the recently fitted back door. This was closed as complete on 30 January 2020.
The landlord’s internal records show that it introduced the resident to a new support worker on 17 January 2020 as her previous support worker had moved to a new role in December 2019. It noted that all repairs needed had been requested, including the new back door.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it raised a job on 17 January 2020 due to a potential leak from the bath. It closed the job as complete on 20 January 2020 with a note made that this may have been related to the resident’s own DIY attempts. A separate bathroom tiling job was raised on 20 January 2020 and completed on 21 January 2020 with a note added to show that the resident had removed tiles from around the shower.
The landlord has advised this Service that it appointed a new major works contractor and informed residents of this on 7 February 2020. This Service has not seen a copy of that letter but has been provided with a letter sent to residents on 13 March 2020 that advised they should contact the new contractors with their kitchen flooring choice.
The landlord’s repairs records show that a job was raised on 11 March 2020 due to a leaking boiler report. It closed the job as complete on 12 March 2020 and closed a further report of a loss of heating and hot water on 13 March 2020. The boiler repair notes show that rusted screws had to be removed to enable replacement of a diverter valve and expansion vessel.
The landlord received correspondence from the resident on 17 March 2020, via her MP, seeking updates on the kitchen installation and bathroom.
The landlord replied to the MP on 25 March 2020 – it advised that a kitchen was due to be replaced in March 2020 but had been suspended due to the pandemic (and that it had advised the resident of this on 18 March 2020). It added that there were no plans to upgrade the bathroom.
The landlord has provided a gas safety record that shows an annual gas safety check was conducted on 21 April 2020 – the property, including the boiler, passed the check.
The landlord’s repairs records show that the back door adjustment was raised as a recall job on 14 May 2020. This was noted as complete on 26 May 2020.
The landlord’s repairs records show that a job was raised on 26 May 2020 to evaluate the boiler. Its internal records show that its gas contractor made a report on 28 May 2020 that they had experienced difficulty in contacting the resident through telephone call attempts. A gas safety report was produced which noted a check had been undertaken on 2 June 2020 – the check was passed with notes stating that there were no leaks, no need for replacement parts and that the resident had advised there had been no problems with the boiler since the contractors previously attended.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 4 June 2020 which it said was a follow up to a conversation with the resident on 29 May 2020. It concluded that:
1. the resident had moved into the property when the kitchen needed modernisation and it had failed to complete these works within the expected timescale but this would be done when lockdown restrictions eased
2. the bathroom had been replaced in 2009 so should still be in good condition and it had not received reports of damaged wall tiles or a damaged bath up to that point but it had previously attended to a leaking toilet which it had replaced together with damaged flooring
3. the boiler was serviced on 21 April 2020 and left in good working order
4. it had inspected the new back door and found it needed adjusting as the frame had dropped
5. it was concerned that the resident had attempted some repairs herself
6. it would undertake boiler and electrical inspections.
The landlord wrote to the resident again on 9 June 2020. It advised that:
1. it had given the resident a £175 decorations allowance on tenancy sign up due to the colour scheme of the previous tenant
2. it had hoped to carry out the kitchen replacement in late 2019 but this failed because the contractor pulled out of the scheme and then the lockdown restrictions had caused further delay; it apologised and awarded £100 compensation
3. it would inspect the resident’s bathroom in response to her reports of repairs needed to it
4. it would conduct an electrical inspection as it was concerned that the resident had painted over sockets
5. it had re-inspected the boiler again (further to the April 2020 service) and again found it to be in good working order
6. it would attend to the back door, which was catching at the top of the frame, when lockdown restrictions allowed
7. the support worker had attempted to make contact unsuccessfully on several occasions so it provided a mobile number for her to use.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 June 2020. She advised that repairs were needed as there had been two leaks from the boiler that had caused damage in November 2019 which she said was due to operatives not fixing the boiler correctly originally. She also linked this to damage in the bathroom that had caused the toilet to be replaced. She added that the situation had severely impacted her mental health.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 26 June 2020. She said that the boiler had now been fixed but that it had leaked twice because the landlord had failed to deal with rust and old parts. She added that it must have been the previous tenant who painted over sockets and that she had only removed bath tiles that had been loose. She noted that the house smelled of damp and she had to keep her heating on for this reason.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 July 2020. It noted that the resident had advised she had not received the 9 June 2020 correspondence and that it had left messages but been unable to speak to the resident by telephone during 2-3 July 2020. It concluded that:
1. a pre-meeting with the kitchen contractor was due to happen that week
2. it would arrange a bathroom inspection over the following days
3. a contractor would organise an appointment for the back door works
4. her support service had been temporarily suspended as the support worker had not been able to speak to the resident and it seemed her phone number had been blocked – it asked the resident to let it know when she would want the service to be reinstated.
The landlord received a letter on 13 July 2020 from the resident. She raised concerns that various operatives had attended without knowing what works to complete. She asked if the back door works would ever be completed and advised that the bathroom works were an emergency and the property had been left unsafe due to the landlord’s failure to deal with a flood.
The landlord’s repairs records show that a job was raised and completed on 15 July 2020 to adjust a door that the resident had previously reported problems with.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 17 July 2020. It confirmed it would reinstate the support arrangement, offered potential dates for the bathroom inspection and advised it had raised an inspection of the leak from the bathroom to the kitchen.
The landlord’s repairs records show that a job was completed on 17 July 2020 relating to a leak coming through a ceiling. It noted that the leak was a result of the resident’s DIY attempts to remove all tiling around the bath and carry out plastering. It has provided a report of an inspection that it undertook noting that the bath had been cracked and comparing the condition of the bathroom to the photographs taken during the void period.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 July 2020. It concluded that:
1. support worker – it agreed that a single point of contact means of support was preferable but reiterated its request for the resident to let it know whether she wanted a change of support worker or not
2. bathroom – it noted that a date had been agreed for an inspection
3. kitchen – a letter would be provided regarding discussions to fit the new kitchen.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 July 2020. She advised that she had been told to claim on her contents insurance but was depressed at the leak dripping into the kitchen.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 July 2020 regarding the bathroom condition. It noted that:
1. the resident had reported that wall tiles had fallen from the wall and damaged her bath because of a door slamming downstairs
2. the resident had informed it that she had not reported the repair and had instead removed other tiles
3. it had inspected on 29 July 2020 and found the resident had also removed a bath panel (it has provided a photograph of this) and attempted some plastering work
4. the bathroom had been left in a poor condition as a result, including damage to flooring
5. it would nevertheless renew the bath and attend to the wall tiles but advised her to make an improvement request in future in line with her tenancy
6. it was aware that the resident had painted electrical sockets in the kitchen but it had agreed to bear the cost of the inspection that resulted from this
7. it reiterated an offer to retain or change the resident’s single point of contact and asked the resident to make it aware of her choice.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it raised a job on 5 August 2020 to replace a bath, repair a leaking pipe and re-tile a wall. This was closed as complete on 12 August 2020.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 August 2020 when she raised concerns that:
1. she had been unable to contact a member of their staff as her contact was blocked
2. she thought the kitchen would be renewed well before Christmas 2019
3. she understood that electrics needed replacing, there had been a delay in the gas being uncapped, she was not given enough keys, there was damp in the living room and windows needed attention
4. she had an extremely bad time with three support workers
5. she experienced loss of heating due to poor quality boiler repair works
6. she had been spoken to unprofessionally by a member of staff and discriminated against by not being offered proper support.
The landlord’s internal records show that a member of staff visited the resident on 18 August 2020 to discuss completion of the bathroom and the kitchen works that were due. It noted that the resident had also sought an update on her complaint, mentioning the kitchen delays, the failure to provide keys to all doors, the lack of understanding of her mental health issues, ongoing damp issues and being pressured into moving into the property.
The resident sent emails to the landlord on 19 August 2020 – she complained that there had been ‘mis-matched’ contractors and ‘lack of pre-checks’ by the landlord. She advised that she had moved into a damp and wet property that had caused ill health, there was a second leak in February and her personal items had been ruined by the landlord.
The landlord issued a response to the resident on 26 August 2020 that it described as a review of the complaint. It noted that it had been difficult to establish the specific complaint concerns due to the volume of correspondence received from the resident but that it had used her recent conversation with a support worker as a guide. It concluded that:
1. her phone number and email address had not been blocked by any staff
2. the resident had bid on the property and been told at viewing that a new kitchen would be installed but there had been delays for which it apologised; it added that works would commence from 21 September 2020 and that the resident had chosen her cupboards and worktops
3. the use of a single point of contact support worker was still the preferred form of communication albeit a staff change had recently occurred
4. works to the boiler and bathroom had now been completed with a replacement bath installed and this had been subject of a previous response by it on 30 July 2020
5. it offered to reimburse the resident for the cost of having a duplicate back door key cut (as the resident had reported she only had one key)
6. the operations director had contacted the resident due to the repairs complaint and offensive nature of an email the resident had sent but it was not their intention to cause the resident anxiety.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 September 2020, expressing continued dissatisfaction as:
1. she had only signed up to the property on the understanding the kitchen works would be completed as soon as possible
2. the landlord had failed to maintain verbal contact with her
3. light fitting and sockets were either broken or covered in paint
4. she described the electrics as ‘dodgy’
5. the landlord had delayed in the back door replacement
6. kitchen items such as a washer/drier were broken by a leak.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 September 2020 and requested compensation for a damaged washer, injury and losses due to her paying for multiple decorations. She followed this with a letter to the landlord on 18 September 2020. She advised that she had no microwave or cooker and said compensation was needed as the landlord had let her a wet property and delayed in carrying out kitchen works.
The landlord’s records show that the resident signed off the kitchen works on 30 September 2020. It took its own photographs of the completed kitchen works on 5 October 2020.
The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 29 October 2020 (after it heard the resident’s complaint at its panel on 15 October 2020). It reached conclusions on each aspect of the resident’s complaint as follows:
1. keys – it apologised and awarded compensation of £50 and a reimbursement of £50 as it failed to provide two sets of keys for each external door when the resident moved in; it noted that this was resolved following the installation of a new back door
2. kitchen – it apologised and awarded £200 compensation, explaining that a contractor had fallen through so there was a delay in the installation of a new kitchen followed by further delay caused by the Covid-19 pandemic; it noted that the new kitchen had now been installed and the resident was satisfied with it
3. tenancy – the resident advised it that she had felt forced into signing up to the tenancy but that this was due to her own circumstances in terms of the time she had spent in her previous address and two other properties she had to turn down rather than any pressure from landlord staff
4. contractors – the landlord explained that it was not able to send the same operatives to the resident’s property given the variety of repairs and improvements needed; it noted that the resident felt she would be able to cope given the repairs had now been completed so there was not a requirement for contractors to regularly attend her home
5. support workers – the landlord apologised that the resident had to have three points of contact during her tenancy so far and advised that this was due to staff moving to new roles
6. resident repairs – the landlord noted that the resident felt she had been accused by it of conducting repairs she should not have; it advised that it only wanted appropriately qualified operatives to carry out works for health and safety reasons
7. damp – the resident had complained that she was denied a dehumidifier; the landlord advised that this was because the problem was that two leaks had occurred from the bathroom to the kitchen and its focus had therefore been on resolving the leaks rather than using a dehumidifier.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 November 2020. She mentioned a ceiling collapse, that the landlord had renewed three boilers at other addresses in the street but not hers and that she had been unfairly blamed for disrepair. She referenced a figure of £1650 that she seemed to be seeking as compensation.
The landlord replied on 23 November 2020 – it advised that the resident that she had already exhausted the complaints process.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Lettable standard

The landlord has evidenced that it undertook a void property check in June 2019, prior to the resident moving in. The photographs it has provided indicate that the condition of the bathroom and kitchen were in line with its lettable standard obligations and it has also evidenced that it completed checks for gas safety when it capped the gas supply (when the property was empty) and when it turned the gas supply back on (when the resident moved into the property in July 2019). There is no evidence that the property was ‘wet’ or that any other repairs were needed at the time of the void checks.
Based on evidence seen by this Service, the only repair reported by the resident within the initial two-month period after she moved in was an adjustment to the back door. This again indicates that the property was not in a state of disrepair at the time it was let and that the landlord’s actions to ensure the property met its lettable standards were therefore appropriate.
However, it is not disputed that the landlord failed to provide the resident with two sets of keys for lockable doors as its lettable standard policy required. This was inappropriate but the landlord considered this through the complaints process which led it to apologise and award £100 compensation (£50 of which was designed to be a reimbursement for the cost of the resident getting her own keys cut). This service failure impacted the resident from the point she moved into the property (July 2019) until it renewed the back door (September 2019).
The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance recommends compensation within the range of £50-£250 for a service failure that was of short duration. The landlord’s compensation award was therefore proportionate given the short-term period when the resident did not hold two sets of keys and that the failure had not prevented her accessing the property.
In summary, the evidence seen by this Service demonstrates that the landlord took appropriate steps to ensure that the property was of lettable standard before the resident’s tenancy began. It failed to provide the resident with two sets of keys as it was obliged to but the combination of its apologies and compensation award represented reasonable redress for any inconvenience caused by this service failure.

Repairs

The resident reported a range of repairs needed to her property from July 2019. She initially reported a fault with the back door in July 2019 and the landlord renewed the door in September 2019. Given the landlord needed to inspect to diagnose the fault and its contractors will have needed to measure up for manufacture of a replacement door, the timescale of around eight weeks to complete the door renewal was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy obligation to complete major repairs within 60 calendar days.
However, the resident made a report on 28 November 2019 that the door did not work properly and the landlord failed to adjust the door until 30 January 2020. Its records show that it decided not to raise an order immediately and instead advised it would inspect the problem when operatives were next on site. This caused a delay and meant that the repair was completed outside of its repair policy obligation to complete standard repairs within 20 working days – this was therefore inappropriate.
Further, the landlord noted that the resident had to report further adjustments needed to the back door in May 2020 and July 2020. Given there was an unnecessary delay in the landlord completing adjustments after the back door was renewed and that it had to return to the property on two occasions after this, it should have offered additional compensation for this service failure.
The resident has also made several reports of leaks to her property as follows:
1. 12 November 2019 – the resident reported a leak from either the toilet cistern or a radiator that affected her kitchen
2. 18 November 2019 – the resident reported a leak that was linked to the boiler and a radiator
3. 17 January 2020 – a leak linked to the bath was identified
4. 11 March 2020 – a leaking boiler was reported
5. 17 July 2020 – a leak from the bathroom was identified

On four out of five of these occasions, the landlord has evidenced that it attended within 24 hours of the leak report as its repairs policy required for emergency works. On every occasion required, it also raised and closed jobs for follow-on works (for items such as tiling and replacement parts) within 20 working days as its repairs policy requires for standard repairs. Its responses to the leak reports were therefore appropriate.

The resident has suggested that leaks were consistent and that the landlord was responsible for these. However, the repairs records demonstrate that there were five occurrences of leaks between November 2019 and July 2020 and that these were from different sources, including the boiler, a radiator, the toilet and the bath. There is therefore no evidence that leaks were linked or caused by negligence on the part of the landlord.
The resident also claimed that the landlord should have renewed her boiler. However, between July 2019 and October 2020, the records show there were only two leaks from the boiler (as well as one from a radiator) and that these were attributed to different faults on each occasion. In addition to its usual gas safety checks, the landlord conducted a boiler evaluation in June 2020 that concluded the boiler required no repairs and was not leaking. The landlord’s decision that the boiler did not require renewal was therefore reasonable and based on the findings of its professionally qualified contractors.
The resident also raised concerns over damp during the complaint process and advised that a dehumidifier request had been rejected. The landlord advised in its final complaint response that a dehumidifier would have been used had there been a diagnosis of damp but would not be used in response to the two leaks from the bathroom. The records seen by this Service do not show that there has been any inspection indicating a presence of damp. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to choose to locate the source of leaks and remedy them in line with its repairs policy rather than installing a dehumidifier.
Following a leak from the boiler on 18 November 2019, the resident reported that items had been damaged, including her washer/drier and decorations. The landlord responded within a day to recommend that she make an insurance claim. Given the landlord is not responsible for maintaining the resident’s washer/drier or decorations and there was no delay in it remedying the leak from above, it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to make an insurance claim.
The resident raised concerns during the complaints process that the landlord had unfairly blamed her for disrepair. The repairs and complaints history indicates that the landlord concluded that the resident was responsible for:
1. painting over kitchen sockets
2. alterations to the upstairs lighting circuit
3. works to the bathroom that caused a leak into the kitchen.
This Service has seen evidence that the kitchen sockets were not painted over at the time it conducted the voids inspection in June 2019 so its conclusion that the resident was responsible for this was reasonable.
This Service has seen evidence that the condition of the bathroom was different in July 2020 than it had been during the void property inspection in June 2019 with tiling, sealant and a bath panel having been removed and plastering splash marks present around the shower area. Given there is no record that the landlord carried out these works, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the resident was responsible and to link these works to the leak from the bathroom in July 2020.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 July 2020 to request that she ask for permission for any future improvement works that she wished to carry out. In doing so, it referenced the resident’s tenancy agreement condition on the ‘right to make improvements’ and explained that this was due to the extent of the works she had attempted and the poor quality of some of these works. It also reiterated a commitment to carry out works to remedy any disrepair she reports and an offer for her to choose a support worker. The landlord’s approach was reasonable as it offered a full explanation as to why it wanted the resident to request permission in future and, although it did refer to her tenancy, it did not warn her under the terms of the tenancy. It took a co-operative approach by confirming it had rectified some of the works at its own expense.
This Service has not been provided with evidence of the landlord’s electrical inspections either during the void period or after the resident moved in. The landlord said it would put right the electrics and re-charge the resident but no documentation has been offered to show that this happened and how the landlord reached this decision. It could have offered more clarity on how it reached this decision but it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its professionally qualified operatives in assessing the electrics in the property.
In summary, the landlord handled the resident’s reports of leaks, boiler repairs and damage to her possessions appropriately. It also reached reasonable conclusions when assessing works undertaken by the resident. However, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report in November 2019 that her new back door did not work properly – it delayed unnecessarily in attending her property to ease and adjust the door and its initial attempts to do so were unsuccessful.

Kitchen upgrade

It is not disputed that the landlord intended to carry out major works to properties at the time that the resident’s tenancy began in July 2019 but that it failed to complete this work until more than a year later (the resident signed off completion of the works in September 2020). This was an unreasonable delay and will have been an inevitable source of frustration and distress for the resident who said she based her acceptance of the property on the understanding that the kitchen would shortly be replaced.
There were two mitigating factors in the delay as follows:
1. in October 2019, the landlord wrote to residents to advise that it had to appoint new contractors because the original contractors had pulled out of the works; this process involved a re-tender exercise where the landlord would have been obliged to obtain quotes from contractors and assess their ability to complete the major works scheme – it is reasonable to conclude that this consultation process would have taken at least two months
2. it planned to install the resident’s kitchen in March 2020 (according to an update it provided in November 2019) but this was delayed by the impact of the Covid-19 lockdown guidance when the government advised landlords in March 2020 that access should only be proposed for ‘serious and urgent’ issues (this advice was not changed until June 2020).
The landlord has evidenced that it offered the resident updates on progress in October 2019, November 2019, March 2020, June 2020 and July 2020. It was reasonable for the landlord to keep the resident informed of likely timescales to reduce the uncertainty caused to her by delays in the kitchen upgrade.
Although the resident’s kitchen was old enough to qualify for replacement, the void photos from June 2019 suggest that the kitchen had met lettable standards and was in a usable condition. Further, the only kitchen repairs (unrelated to leaks from above) reported by the resident between July 2019 and August 2020 were to tiles and sockets (that the landlord concluded had been painted over by the resident). This indicates that the kitchen was usable during the period of delay.
Nevertheless, there was some delay on the part of the landlord and its contractors. The landlord was aware at least as early as October 2019 that the original contractors would not be carrying out works and should have been able to commence works with new contractors in January 2020 but did not schedule these to commence until March 2020.
The landlord apologised for its delay and awarded the resident £200 compensation when it reviewed the matter at the final stage of its complaints process. This was in the range that the Ombudsman recommends for service failures that have had an impact on the resident, including distress, inconvenience and disappointment. Given some of the delay was outside of the landlord’s control and the kitchen was functional during the period of delay, this compensation award was proportionate.
In summary, the landlord contributed to delays in the resident’s kitchen upgrade. The resident was understandably disappointed as she expected a new kitchen to be installed soon after she moved in but these works were not completed until the following year. However, some of the delay was outside of the landlord’s control and the combination of its apology and compensation award therefore represented reasonable redress to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its service failure.

Support

It is not disputed that the landlord provided a support worker contact for the resident although it is not clear from the evidence seen by this Service when this arrangement began. The landlord’s records show that the resident had a support worker during 2019 but that this officer left the role and so a new support worker was introduced to her in January 2020. This Service has not been provided with evidence that the landlord was obliged to provide a support worker service but given it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, it was a reasonable approach for a single point of contact source of support to be offered.
The resident has advised that she had difficulty in contacting her support worker from time to time. Similarly, the landlord advised her in June 2020 that the support worker had not been able to contact her so it offered a direct mobile number for the resident to use. It also confirmed in July 2020 that it agreed that a support worker was beneficial for her and offered to reinstate the arrangement with a different member of staff if she wished. It was reasonable for the landlord to give the resident some choice with the support worker contact given she had reported concerns with how the arrangement was working.
The resident continued to raise concerns in August 2020 and said that she felt the landlord had failed to support her and had therefore discriminated against her. The landlord replied the same month and reiterated its agreement that a single point of contact support worker was required but added that another staffing change had occurred so a new staff member would fulfil this role. Again, it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to reassure the resident that it was willing to make adjustments to its working practices to accommodate her needs.
It is not disputed that there has been inconsistency in the resident’s point of contact due to staff turnover. This is unfortunate as it may have added to the resident’s anxiety and her concerns that the landlord had not made appropriate adjustments. However, the landlord was not compelled to retain the same member of staff to fulfil the role and no evidence has been seen by this Service that there were lengthy periods when the resident was unable to contact the landlord. Indeed, the landlord took pro-active steps during the complaints process such as meeting with the resident to establish her concerns and arranging for a remote meeting.
The resident has added that the landlord failed to accommodate her request for it to limit the number of operatives who attend her home. The landlord has explained that this was not possible given the range of works that were needed to her home.
The landlord’s repairs records do indicate that multiple trades needed to attend the property during the first 18 months of the resident’s tenancy. It is not uncommon for landlords to use different companies for delivery of major works, repairs and engineering responsibilities and for those companies to use different operatives depending on the trade involved (i.e. plumbers, electricians, plasterers, etc.). The landlord’s explanation as to why it could not meet the resident’s request for a limit on the number of operatives was therefore reasonable although it may be beneficial for it to consider alternative arrangements when its contractor is due to attend the resident’s home in future – a recommendation is made in this regard below.
In summary, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s requests for it to consider her circumstances and offer appropriate support. It offered her a single point of contact support worker and continued this arrangement when individual staff members left. Its explanation as to why it could not make a similar adjustment for operatives attending her home was reasonable.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs needed to her property.
In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the service failures identified in its handling of:
1. the resident’s reports that the property had not met lettable standards
2. the kitchen upgrade works.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for it to consider her circumstances and offer appropriate support.

Reasons

The landlord should have provided the resident with two keys for each lockable door as part of its lettable standard policy. It failed to do so but the apology and £100 compensation award were appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord delayed unreasonably for two months in repairing a back door that it had recently installed.
The landlord contributed to delays in the resident’s kitchen being upgraded but its apology and £200 compensation award were appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord took reasonable steps in response to the resident’s requests for it to consider her circumstances and offer appropriate support. It provided her with a single point of contact support worker early in her tenancy and has attempted to continuously maintain this arrangement.

Orders

The landlord to apologise and pay the resident compensation of £75 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to her by the service failure in its handling of her reports of repairs needed to her property.

The landlord should confirm compliance with this order to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to work with its contractors to ensure operatives are fully briefed on the scope of works required before attending the resident’s home and for the resident to be advised in advance once this has happened.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation to this Service and the resident within four weeks of the date of this report.