Broadland Housing Association Limited (202327183)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327183

Broadland Housing Association Limited

21 December 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 the resident’s:
1. Request for a replacement kitchen.
2. Complaint.

Background

The resident and his wife are assured tenants of the landlord and occupy a 2-bedroom house with their child. They have lived at the property since 2005 when it was a new build. The landlord has confirmed that its records show the resident’s wife has “long-term mobility and mental health difficulties”.
On 28 June 2023, the resident complained to the landlord that he had been told his kitchen would not be replaced until it was 20 years old, even though it was “way past its initial life span”. He said it was “looking worn and in bad repair”, was “dangerous” especially for his disabled wife and child, and was in urgent need of replacement, not repair. He believed multiple repairs had weakened the drawer and cupboard doors so repairs did not last, and he referred to attached photographs showing “a big hole” in the disintegrated wood. He felt he had not been listened to when he reported that the drawer face had fallen on and bruised his foot. He believed he was being ignored while his neighbour had had their kitchen replaced 6 months ago, when it was in better condition than his.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 30 August 2023, which stated:
1. It agreed that the many previous repairs to the kitchen, particularly the base unit, had not lasted long.
2. Its surveyor had assessed the kitchen and found that “it was dry and that the actual carcass was intact.” Therefore, it was optimistic the kitchen repair booked on 20 October 2023 would be successful. If not, it would replace the kitchen base unit.
3. The kitchen replacement was due in 2030, which it appreciated would be disappointing.
4. It acknowledged that the property was not suitable for the family’s needs. It noted that the resident had applied to transfer but to date had not been successful in bidding.
5. It accepted and apologised that “the service you received was far below the good quality service we strive to achieve.”
6. It awarded compensation totalling £50, comprising:
  1. £25 in recognition of the time it had taken to respond to the complaint.
  2. £25 for the upset and inconvenience arising from its failure to repair the kitchen satisfactorily.
Although it is not clear when the resident requested escalation of his complaint or the points he raised, a stage 2 panel hearing took place on 30 October 2023. The landlord confirmed the outcome in its stage 2 letter dated 1 November 2023:
1. There was “no doubt” that the resident’s kitchen required some remedial work. It accepted that this was “more significant” than the replacement of one door on the base unit, as committed to in its stage 1 response.
2. The surveyor’s report indicated that the structure of the kitchen was sound and could be repaired.
3. All remedial works would be assessed and undertaken as a priority to bring the kitchen back up to a suitable standard.
4. There was no case to install a new kitchen. It was installed in 2005, several units had been replaced in 2018, and the kitchen was not due to be replaced until 2030. This was in line with its own expectations around the useful lifespan of a kitchen and the Decent Homes Standard.
5. It had appointed a specific member of staff to support the resident with the more pressing issue of applying for a more suitable home for his family.
6. It apologised for the delays in responding to the complaint and addressing the repairs to the kitchen. It offered £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident and his family.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 8 November 2023.He said he remained dissatisfied with the condition of his kitchen and the landlord’s final position on resolving matters.
Thereafter, the landlord provided a further stage 1 response, dated 28 March 2024, to a complaint raised by the resident on 23 January 2024. As well as addressing other unrelated matters, it provided the following update in relation to the kitchen repairs:
1. The repairs, which were originally booked in June 2023, had been rescheduled 5 times and were still not completed, with no access at the last 3 appointments. They were now scheduled to take place on 9 April 2024.
2. It apologised that, contrary to its procedure, it had not called the resident to rearrange appointments but only sent text/email notifications.
3. It accepted and apologised for its failure to acknowledge his complaint or keep him updated, and the delay in providing its response.
4. Having considered the resident’s experience, it had identified the need for additional resources in its customer service and complaint handling teams in order to improve services to its customers.
5. It offered compensation totalling £150, comprising:
  1. £50 for its failures to follow its process in rearranging the kitchen repairs.
  2. £25 for its failure to follow its process in acknowledging the complaint within timescales.
  3. £25 for its failure to respond to the complaint within timescales.
  4. £50 for any additional distress or inconvenience caused.
The Ombudsman has not seen a further stage 2 response in respect of this further complaint.
The resident subsequently refused the replacement of some of the kitchen cupboard doors on 9 April 2024 because the landlord could not source fronts that matched his existing kitchen. He has told the Ombudsman that he believes his kitchen should be replaced given the repeated failure of multiple previous repairs.

Assessment and findings

Request for a replacement kitchen

The Ombudsman cannot determine whether or not the resident’s kitchen required replacement. Rather, the role of this Service is to consider whether the landlord has taken appropriate steps, in line with relevant policies and procedures, to address the resident’s reports of problems with the kitchen.
Social landlords are required to ensure their properties meet the Decent Homes Standard. The relevant provisions state that a property fails to meet the standard if either:
1. The kitchen, classed as a “key building component”, is both old (over 30 years) and in poor condition.
2. It lacks 3 or more of the following:
  1. A kitchen which is 20 years old or less.
  2. A kitchen with adequate space and layout.
  3. A bathroom which is 30 years old or less.
  4. An appropriately located bathroom and WC.
  5. Adequate external noise insulation.
  6. Adequate size and layout of common areas for blocks of flats.
The landlord’s commitment to maintaining properties in line with the Decent Homes Standard is reflected in its asset management policy and plan for the period from 2023 to 2026. The latter notes the lifecycle for kitchens under the Decent Homes Standard is 30 years, compared to its own standard of 20 to 25 years.
As the resident’s kitchen was originally installed in 2005, under the landlord’s asset management plan, it would be due for replacement by 2030 at the latest. This was correctly confirmed to the resident in the landlord’s complaint responses.
However, the age of a kitchen alone is not the determinative factor in deciding whether or not it ought to be replaced. This is reflected in the Decent Homes Standard, which acknowledges that a building component may require replacement before it reaches its expected lifetime if it has failed early. The landlord would therefore be expected to deal with early failure, typically on a responsive basis.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It is vital for the landlord to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. It should have appropriate systems in place to keep records of repairs and monitor the outcome of contractor appointments so that it can demonstrate its actions and interventions. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision making at the time. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
In this case, it is noted that the landlord agreed, in its stage 1 response, that many previous repairs to the kitchen had failed. However, it has not provided the Ombudsman with any evidence of the resident’s reports of repairs needed to his kitchen and the actions it took to address these. Similarly, there is no evidence of the surveyor’s findings as set out in the landlord’s complaint responses, although records show that a stock condition survey was carried out on 21 August 2023. The lack of evidence has prevented the Ombudsman from meaningfully assessing whether the landlord took timely, appropriate and effective steps to deal with the repairs.
The landlord has not demonstrated, to the Ombudsman’s satisfaction, that it took reasonable steps to address the repeated failures of previous repairs, as accepted in the stage 1 response. While the number and frequency of those failed repairs is not clear, the resident is reasonably entitled to expect that such repairs would not be necessary on an ongoing basis.
Records show that there was a delay in dealing with the kitchen repairs from 27 June 2023 to 9 April 2024, and that appointments were repeatedly rescheduled. This was acknowledged by the landlord in its further stage 1 response of 28 March 2024, which also accepted that it had not communicated appropriately with the resident regarding the appointment changes. This demonstrates a number of failures on the landlord’s part that clearly caused the resident frustration, distress and inconvenience.
The resident has submitted a number of photographs to the Ombudsman to show the condition of his kitchen, although it is not possible to ascertain when these were taken and it is not entirely clear what some of the images are showing as they are zoomed in. There is a photograph of a cupboard door that appears not to be properly attached, suggesting an issue with its hinges. Another shows a base unit with a missing door and a drawer with the finish coming off. There are also images of multiple holes in the units where several hinges had been fitted, worn corners and edges, and the poor state of cosmetic repair. While these offer some helpful visual evidence of the condition of the kitchen, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that there was an issue with functionality as such.
Having said that, it is noted that the stage 2 response accepted that the works required to bring the kitchen to an acceptable standard went beyond the replacement of one cupboard door, as per the stage 1 letter. This calls into question the reasonableness of the landlord’s approach in establishing the kitchen’s condition and identifying the extent of the necessary remedial works. Furthermore, it has failed to substantiate not only its assertion that the kitchen is capable of repair, but that any repairs would be sustainable to avoid the need for further repairs before the planned replacement of the kitchen in 2030.
Records show the severe impact the outstanding kitchen repairs had on the resident’s household. He repeatedly told the landlord how frustrating and problematic it was to have a kitchen that was “falling apart” despite multiple previous repairs, especially for his wife who used a wheelchair and required additional support in the kitchen. It is clear that this issue had a significant detrimental impact on the resident’s day-to-day use and enjoyment of the property over an extended period of time. Although the landlord’s complaint responses recognised the general unsuitability of the property for the resident’s household, it did not acknowledge his concerns in the context of his wife’s disability. An empathetic response by the landlord and efforts to understand the impact would have improved the resident’s experience.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident’s refusal of the kitchen repairs attempted on 9 April 2024 means the impact to him and his family is ongoing. The landlord has not disputed that the parts ordered for the repairs to the resident’s kitchen did not match his existing units. While no fault can be placed with the landlord for not being able to source matching parts, it has failed to demonstrate, with reference to evidence, that it took reasonable steps to consider and address the resident’s objections in order to resolve matters.
In all the circumstances, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord was responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen.
The landlord revised its compensation offer to the resident in its stage 2 complaint response of 1 November 2023, increasing this from £50 at stage 1 to £100. A breakdown was not provided, so it is not clear what proportion of this related to its failings in relation to the kitchen repairs/request for replacement and what amount related to its complaint handling failures. It is also noted that, as part of its subsequent stage 1 response on 28 March 2024, it offered an additional £50 for its communications failure relating to the repair appointments and a further £50 “for any additional stress or inconvenience caused”.
Although the level of compensation offered by the landlord was broadly in line with its compensation policy, it was not consistent with the amounts that would be awarded under the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for the considerable failures and severe impact identified. Specifically, the landlord’s offer does not reasonably reflect the repeated failure of previous repairs, the delay in attending the property to carry out the proposed repairs, its poor communication regarding the rescheduling of appointments, and the longstanding, severe impact on the resident’s household, especially his disabled wife. In all the circumstances, a fairer and more proportionate remedy would fall within the higher range of our compensation awards for maladministration.
In summary, it is appropriate to find maladministration in respect of this complaint because:
1. The landlord failed to keep accurate records relating to the kitchen repairs, including the resident’s reports and evidence of the works carried out to address these.
2. Due to its failure to provide relevant records of previous repairs, the Ombudsman cannot meaningfully assess the reasonableness of its actions in response to the resident’s earlier reports.
3. There was an excessive delay of over 9 months, from 27 June 2023 to 9 April 2024, for the landlord’s contractor to attend the property in order to carry out the proposed repairs to the kitchen (albeit this was refused by the resident).
4. The landlord did not communicate appropriately with the resident about the repeated rescheduling of the repair appointment.
5. The landlord did not take timely and reasonable steps to establish the condition of the kitchen. There is no evidence to support its assertion that the kitchen can be repaired and, therefore, a replacement is not required.
6. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to address all aspects of the resident’s concerns, including his belief that he had been treated unfairly, his reports had been ignored, and the impact of the outstanding repairs on his household.
7. The landlord’s compensation offer was not reasonable and proportionate to remedy its failings and the severe, detrimental impact on the resident’s household.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will:
1. Acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days.
2. Provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised.
3. Arrange a stage 2 panel hearing within 20 working days of a request for escalation of a complaint.
4. Provide its stage 2 response within 3 working days of the panel hearing.
The resident’s complaint, made on 28 June 2023, was not acknowledged within the 3 working days provided in the complaints policy. The resident chased for a response on 7 July 2023 and the landlord sent an acknowledgement on 11 July 2023. This was 10 working days after the complaint was made, which was inappropriate, and contributed to the overall delay in dealing with his complaint.
The stage 1 response was issued 36 working days after the acknowledgement, which was outside the landlord’s service standard set out in its complaints policy. It was also inconsistent with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code applicable at the time.
The landlord has not provided evidence of the resident’s request to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure, which further highlights its failure to keep accurate records or otherwise to provide the same to the Ombudsman for our investigation. Therefore, we cannot reasonably assess whether its response addressed the key points raised by the resident, or if it responded within the timescales in its complaints policy and this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. Its offer of compensation for its response outside of its service standards suggests there was a delay in providing the stage 2 response. The Ombudsman also acknowledges the apology given by the landlord for its handling of the kitchen repairs and complaint handling failures.
However, as highlighted above, the landlord’s complaint responses failed to address a number of points raised in the resident’s complaint of 28 June 2023. For example, it did not deal with his concerns that he had not been listened to when he reported an injury from the drawer face falling onto his foot, and that he had been treated unfairly in comparison with his neighbour, who had had a new kitchen fitted recently. This was not consistent with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, which require landlords to deal fairly with complaints and put things right. Although the landlord would have been limited in the information it was able to share with the resident about his neighbour, providing an explanation of its decision making process in such circumstances would have gone some way towards preserving trust and confidence in the landlord/tenant relationship.
In all the circumstances, a finding of service failure is appropriate in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This is because the redress offered did not reflect all of the failures identified by this investigation, and the exact level of redress (somewhere below £100) was not clearly stated.
While this investigation took into account the additional compensation offered by the landlord for its failings in the handling of the kitchen repairs in its further stage 1 response, the Ombudsman takes the view that it is not appropriate to consider the compensation offered for its complaint handling failures in 2024 as that was distinct from the 2023 complaint. Therefore, we have only assessed the reasonableness of the compensation offered in the stage 2 response dated 1 November 2023.
As noted above, it is unclear what proportion of the £100 compensation offered at stage 2 related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures. Given the delays in providing its complaints responses acknowledged by the landlord and the gaps in the evidence preventing a more complete assessment of its complaint handling failures, the Ombudsman takes the view that compensation of £100 is appropriate recognition for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen.
2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within 6 weeks of the date of this determination (allowing for the Christmas period), the landlord must:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its failings in this case, in accordance with this Service’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £1,000, which comprises:
  1. £900 for its failings in relation to the kitchen repairs/request for replacement.
  2. £100 for its complaint handling failures.
  3. These sums should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.
  4. If already paid to the resident, the landlord can deduct from the total compensation to be paid under this order the sums of £100 offered on 1 November 2023 and £100 offered on 28 March 2024.
3. Arrange an inspection of the resident’s kitchen by a suitably qualified surveyor in order to establish its current condition and the surveyor’s recommendations for a sustainable solution to address the issues identified. The landlord must send a copy of the surveyor’s report to the Ombudsman and the resident, clearly setting out:
  1. Its decision on the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen in light of the surveyor’s report.
  2. The action it proposes to take to remedy the condition of the kitchen.
The Ombudsman orders that, within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Complete all/any works proposed by it and agreed by the resident under paragraph 36.c above.
2. Carry out a review of its handling of matters in this case. A report detailing the outcome of the review should be submitted to the Ombudsman and should identify:
  1. What went wrong, what it has learned from the resident’s experience, and what it would do differently to avoid the same happening again.
  2. Any staff training needs and/or changes to its procedures to ensure repairs and complaints are accurately recorded, appropriately investigated and addressed in a reasonable and timely manner.
3. Self-assess against the recommendations made by the Ombudsman at pages 44 to 47 of the spotlight report on knowledge and information management, unless it can demonstrate it has done so within the last 12 months.
4. Self-assess against the recommendations made by the Ombudsman at pages 62 to 64 of the spotlight report on Attitudes, respect and rights – relationship of equals, unless it can demonstrate it has done so within the last 12 months.