Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202313350)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313350

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

10 October 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. The inspection of repairs it completed in 2020 and 2021.
2. Works to the resident’s kitchen.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord.
The Ombudsman determined a separate complaint by the resident in September 2022. As part of the outcome of this complaint the Ombudsman ordered the landlord to:
1. Arrange an inspection of the property to ensure that repairs completed in 2020 and 2021 were carried out to an acceptable standard.
2. Contact the resident to ask whether she wished to raise a formal complaint about issues she had raised between April and December 2021.
On 5 October 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to ask her availability in relation to it carrying out an inspection of her property. It said it wanted to ensure that repairs it had carried out between July 2020 and December 2021 were of an acceptable standard.
The resident complained to the landlord on 19 October 2022. For ease of reference this complaint will be referred to as complaint A. She said:
1. The kitchen tiles were not clean. She and a cleaning company hadattemptedto clean the tiles, but it was not possible. The landlordhad said that the tiles needed to be renewed but she had not heard anything further from it.
2. The landlord had removed the kitchen cupboards during previous works and put them outside on the ground and the edges were damaged. The cupboards were also damaged inside. The landlord’s operatives had drilled holes into the kitchen cupboards to replace the handles but filled the old holes badly. It had bought new end-panels for the kitchen, but these were the wrong colour. She had asked the landlord about extra worktops in the kitchen so she could have more space. She had not had a response to any of these issues.
3. She wanted the landlord to carry-out an inspection at an agreed time so she could go through these issues with it.
On 24 October 2022, the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response to complaint A. It said:
1. It had carried out surveys of the resident’s property in June 2021 and had identified a number of repairs. However, the repairs were not completed until December 2021. It acknowledged that this was an unacceptable delay and apologised for this. The delays were caused by a backlog of works that had built up during the Covid-19 pandemic, however the resident had spent a significant amount of time chasing the repairs. Furthermore, there had not been a clear and accurate audit trail of all repairs. It said it had reminded its repairs team of the importance of audit trails and timescales for completing repairs. It would also carry-out refresher training. It offered the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience these delays had caused her and an additional £150 for the time she spent chasing these repairs.
2. It asked the resident again if there was a convenient time for it to inspect the property in relation to the repairs she had raised.
3. It would renew her kitchen tiles. It apologised for the damage to the kitchen cupboards and would raise the issue with its staff to ensure this did not happen in the future. It would inspect the kitchen to see if it needed renewal. It could not guarantee that it would be able to provide the resident with more worktop space but if a kitchen renewal was deemed necessary it would talk to its kitchen design contractor to see if this was feasible. It acknowledged that the resident had raised the issues with her kitchen before, but it had not resolved them. It apologised to the resident and offered her a further £100 compensation to recognise this.
On 1 November 2022, a landlord’s operative attended the resident’s property to carry-out an inspection.
The resident escalated complaint A to stage 3 of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 20 November 2022. She said:
1. The landlord’s operative who carried-out an inspection on 1 November 2022, told her they were only there to inspect the kitchen tiles, and not the kitchen cupboards. She said she had tried to call the landlord while its operative was still at the property but was unable to get through so left a voicemail. She said the operative then received a call from the landlord and told it the resident had refused to let them look at the kitchen cupboards and therefore it would have to arrange for another operative to inspect the kitchen cupboards.
2. After its operative had left, the resident managed to get through to the landlord. She said the member of staff she spoke to was rude and refused to listen to her and the resident had to terminate the call. She said she had complained directly to this member of staff via email but had not received a response.
3. She wanted the landlord to ensure that all the tiles along the wall would be renewed. Its operative had only measured a short section of wall where the new boiler had been fitted. She asked when it would inspect her kitchen cupboards. She wanted the landlord to address the way its staff member had spoken to her on the phone and to carry-out staff training in relation to the way in which it dealt with its residents.
On 22 November 2022, the landlord issued its stage 3 complaint response to complaint A. It said:
1. Its operative had denied the resident’s allegation that they had refused to inspect her kitchen cupboards. As there was a conflicting version of events without evidence to support either account, it could not investigate this matter further.
2. Another member of its staff had been present during the resident’s call and did not consider that the staff member’s behaviour had been inappropriate. The staff member the resident had complained about had felt unable to continue the call with her and had told the resident they would end the call.
3. It had arranged another inspection of the resident’s kitchen for 1 December 2022. If it decided that the kitchen needed replacing, it would renew the tiles as part of this work.
The resident responded to the landlord on 22 November 2022. She said its stage 3 complaint response contained inaccuracies. She had not said its operative had refused to inspect the kitchen cupboards; she had said that they were unaware that they were there to inspect the kitchen cupboards. She said that there had been 2 calls with the member of staff she had complained about, and the other member of staff had acknowledged to the resident that they had only witnessed the initial call. It had been during the second call that the landlord’s staff member had been rude to her. The landlord contacted the resident on 24 November 2022 and advised that if she wished to pursue these matters further, she would need to contact the Ombudsman.
On 5 January 2023, the landlord told the resident it would replace the end panels and would colour wrap them if necessary to match the existing kitchen units. The landlord contacted the resident on 31 January 2023 to say it would renew the kitchen as it was not able to match the panels.
On 21 April 2023, the landlord provided the resident with a schedule of works in relation to the fitting of the new kitchen. On 24 April 2023, a removal company booked by the landlord moved the resident’s white goods into the outhouse at the property with the assistance of members of her family.
The resident submitted a new complaint, complaint B, on 3 May 2023. The Service has asked the landlord to provide a copy of this complaint, however it has been unable to do so.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 5 May 2023, to refit her washing machine after an operative it had sent previously complained of back pain, but it was not able to gain access to the property. It refitted the washing machine on 11 May 2023.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response to complaint B on 17 May 2023. It said:
1. The replacement of the resident’s kitchen had gone more smoothly than planned which meant that there were a couple of days that no work was needed. It accepted that this may have been frustrating for the resident, however it arranged works with its tradespeople in advance and could not always release operatives should previous work be completed more quickly than planned.
2. It apologised that a gas safety engineer completing a gas safety check had not asked for the resident’s signature on paperwork.
3. The resident had told it that plaster had been flushed down an external drain at the property and was causing a blockage. Its operatives had returned to remove the plaster and had also removed a large amount of soil and dirt from the drain. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the inconvenience this had caused.
4. It had highlighted the problems with refitting the resident’s washing machine to management and apologised for the delay and inconvenience this had caused the resident.
5. The resident had told it one of its operatives had left a logbook at her property. It apologised for this. It said it had raised the incident with management.
6. The kitchen floor tiles had been damaged during the replacement of the kitchen and for all the tiles to be the same, it would need to replace all the tiles. This work would take around 2 days.
7. It asked the resident to let it know her availability so it could post inspect the replacement of her kitchen.
On 18 May 2023, the resident said there was no need for the whole kitchen floor to be replaced as there were only a few damaged tiles around the base units. The landlord responded the same day to inform the resident it could no longer source the original tiles. It said that if the resident did not mind the tiles not being the same, it would see what dates it could arrange for its operative to lay replacement tiles. The resident said that the whole floor being replaced would mean that all her appliances would need to be disconnected again causing her further upheaval. She said she was due to go into hospital on 2 June 2023 and her recovery would take 3 months so ideally the landlord would need to replace the kitchen floor before that date.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 May 2023. She said she had not heard anything further from it in relation to the dates it could relay the kitchen floor. The landlord contacted the resident the same day to say it could screed the floor on 31 May 2023 and return to lay the floor on 1 June 2023.
On 26 May 2023, the resident told the landlord she would not be available on 1 June 2023 and could not get anyone to be present instead. She said she could be available on 30 May and 31 May 2023. The landlord replied the same day to say its contractor was not available on those dates. It asked whether the resident could ask a family member or friend to provide access. Alternatively, the operatives could access her property via a key safe if she was happy to allow this. The resident said she had already told the landlord no-one was available to allow the operatives access on 1 June 2023. She said the landlord had ignored her email and was acting out of spite due to the fact that she had complained. The landlord apologised for not responding to the resident but said it had passed her email onto the relevant team. It said it was not acceptable that this team had not responded to her. It assured her it was not acting out of spite. It offered to complete the works after the resident had recovered from her treatment.
The resident escalated complaint B to stage 3 of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 28 May 2023. She said the landlord:
1. Should have checked that the kitchen floor tiles were still in stock.
2. Did not read her email properly in relation to when she would be available for the works to the floor.
3. Had not sent anyone to inspect the works to the kitchen. One of the kitchen wall units it had installed had had a hole put through the back of it which had been filled with sealant.
On 28 June 2023 the landlord issued its stage 3 complaint response to complaint B. It said:
1. At the time of planning, it believed that the floor tiles in the kitchen were still available should any repairs be needed. However, when it came to ordering the tiles, it found that the tiles available were not an exact match. It therefore agreed to replace the whole floor. It appreciated that this will have been frustrating for the resident.
2. It contacted the resident to try to arrange an appointment to replace the floor prior to 2 June 2023. The work did not go ahead as it could not attend on the dates the resident had proposed. It acknowledged that it had not responded to some of the resident’s emails in a timely manner.
3. It refuted the resident’s allegation that it had not responded to her email out of spite.
4. The resident had told it that she was still in recovery and that she would contact it once she was ready for the remaining work to go ahead. It would carry-out an inspection once all the works were complete.
The resident complained to the Ombudsman on 11 July 2023. She said the works the landlord had carried-out to the kitchen were a mess and it had not inspected the works to assess whether it needed to rectify anything.
On 6 March 2024, the resident told the Service that the outstanding issues in the kitchen were as follows: the cavity insulation was not covered properly, a wall unit was damaged and filled with sealant, a work-top was damaged, the windowsill above the kitchen sink was not level and was damaged, the landlord had only fitted one UPVC windowsill to the old tiles, whilst leaving another old tiled windowsill as it was, some unit doors did not properly align, draw units had scuffs and chips on them, there was a poor finish to the splashback, and the floor was damaged.
On 18 September 2024, the resident told the Service that the following issues remained outstanding in her property:
1. The landlord had not inspected the kitchen. The interior doors needed replacing. There was damp under the kitchen window and a wet patch on the ceiling.
2. The landlord had not agreed to provide extra worktop space in the kitchen and had told her she needed to seek permission to install a cushioned floor in her kitchen.
3. She had asked the landlord to move the kitchen radiator and fit patio doors so she did not have to walk through the outhouse to reach the garden, as the floor was uneven and it was filthy and damp. She said the outhouse was a source of damp which affected the main house.
4. All interior doors were damaged and needed replacing.
5. The bathroom door was too short.
6. She could hear debris falling within the staircase wall. The handrail on the stairs was not secured and the new skirting board under the stairs was not attached properly after the works to remedy the damp.
7. The front door let in water. There were no keys to the window locks. The window in the front bedroom looked permanently dirty after the landlord carried out works to prevent condensation between the panels of glass.
8. Flagstones in the garden and on the drive needed to be secured. Gates to the drive and a gate to the steps up to the house needed replacing. A wall or fence needed to be raised to prevent the garden sliding down the path in bad weather.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

The resident’s requests that the landlord inspect the damp on the kitchen ceiling and under the kitchen window, replace the kitchen doors, move the kitchen radiator and fit patio doors, repair the bathroom door, replace all interior doors in the property, replace the gates to the drive and the gate to the steps up to the house, provide keys to the window locks, secure flagstones in the garden and on the drive, and take measures to prevent the garden sliding down the path, are outside the scope of this investigation. There are no records to show that the resident raised these issues in 2020 or 2021. The resident may have raised some of these issues with the landlord prior to 2020, however as this was several years ago, the Service cannot effectively investigate and assess these matters due to the availability of evidence. Furthermore, as these issues were not raised as part of the current complaint the resident has brought to the Ombudsman, they will not form part of this assessment. It is recommended however that the landlord consider responding to these issues, (or reiterating its response to these issues, if it has responded previously). If the resident wishes to pursue these matters further, she can complain to the landlord. She may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. However, the Ombudsman would only investigate recent concerns about these repairs rather than historic events from several years ago.
The resident has told the Service that the outhouse remains damp. Under paragraph 42.l. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon. The landlord’s response to this issue was investigated by the Service as part of the previous complaint the resident brought to the Ombudsman in 2022. Therefore, this issue is outside the scope of this assessment.
The resident has mentioned in her complaints that the landlord’s handling of works to her kitchen led her to take numerous days off work. The Service will not usually propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out. Whilst such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, their occupancy agreement will require them to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed, and it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order the landlord to reimburse the resident for loss of earnings for routine appointments. However, the Ombudsman can consider time, trouble and inconvenience caused where repairs appointments are repeatedly missed or fail to resolve the repair issue.

Policies and procedures

Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord has a responsibility to repair the structure and exterior of the property. Landlords are generally also responsible for repairing any fixtures and fittings such as installed kitchens that were there at the time the resident moved in. The tenancy agreement states that residents have the right to carry out improvements to their home. Residents must seek permission from the landlord before carrying out any improvements or alterations to their property.
The landlord’s home repair policy states that it will carry-out routine repairs within 20 working days. The policy states it will carry out planned or major works within 40 working days. Its policy states that planned works may need a planning visit prior to works commencing.
The landlord’s complaints procedure in operation at the time of the resident’s complaint had 3 stages as follows:
1. Stage 1: problem solving. The landlord will try to deal with the complaint quickly and informally by providing information or taking appropriate action to the satisfaction of the resident.
2. Stage 2: investigation of the complaint. The landlord will respond to the resident within 20 working days. If more time is needed, it will contact the resident to explain the reasons for this and will let them know when it will respond.
3. Stage 3: review of the complaint. The landlord will respond to the resident within 20 working days, however if the complaint is complex, it may extend this time.

Inspection of repairs completed in 2020 and 2021

The landlord acted appropriately in asking the resident on 5 October 2022 and in its complaint response of 24 October 2022, when it could carry-out an inspection of the repairs it had completed in 2020 and 2021. As noted above an inspection visit was arranged for 1 November 2022. It is not clear whether this visit was to inspect the repairs completed in 2020 and 2021 or whether the landlord intended to carry-out an inspection of just the kitchen. Nor is it clear what issues the landlord intended to inspect during its visit of 1 December 2022 as it has not provided inspection reports for either visit. The fact that the landlord has not carried-out an inspection of the repairs it completed in 2020 and 2021, over 2 years after it was ordered to do so by the Ombudsman was a failing which will have caused the resident considerable time, trouble and inconvenience.
The landlord is ordered to inspect the bedroom window and the front door as its repair records show that it carried-out repairs to these in 2020 and the resident has told the Service that these repairs are not complete. It is also ordered to inspect the staircase wall, the handrail on the stairs, and the new skirting board under the stairs, to ensure that these repairs have been completed to a satisfactory standard. These works were initially carried out in December 2021, as part of works to remedy damp on the staircase. The landlord is ordered to carry-out repairs to remedy any issues it identifies. If the landlord believes no further works are necessary, it should write to the resident and the Ombudsman to explain why.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, published on our website, states that where maladministration has been identified which adversely affected the resident, £100-£600 compensation should be considered. It is acknowledged that the landlord offered the resident £350 (£200 + £150) on 24 October 2022, for the delays to these repairs in 2021. However, the landlord is ordered to offer the resident a further £100 for its failure to post-inspect these works as ordered in the Ombudsman’s investigation into the resident’s previous complaint.

The landlord’s handling of works to the resident’s kitchen

In its stage 2 complaint response of 24 October 2022, the landlord said it would replace the tiles and would inspect the kitchen to see whether it was in need of renewal. This was an appropriate response, as the resident had raised several concerns about her kitchen and the landlord needed to assess whether it could take steps to repair the issues she had raised or whether given the condition of her kitchen, a renewal was necessary. It offered her £100 compensation as it recognised she had raised issues with her kitchen on previous occasions. This was a reasonable offer at that stage which adequately recognised the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident by the fact that the landlord had not dealt with these issues earlier.
However, the resident told the landlord that the operative it sent to inspect the kitchen, said that he was only there to inspect the tiles. Without corroborating evidence, it is difficult for the Service to establish what happened during this visit. It appears more like than not that there was miscommunication on the part of the landlord as it had told the resident it would inspect the kitchen in its entirety to see whether it was due for renewal and it seems unlikely that the resident would have refused to allow the landlord’s operative to inspect the cupboards, as she had been requesting that it do this for a considerable period of time. It is recommended that the landlord considers sending residents written confirmation prior to inspections to ensure that it is clear in advance what issues it is there to inspect and for residents to refer to, to prevent future disputes as to the reasons for an inspection.
The resident complained that a member of the landlord’s staff was rude and refused to listen to her during a phone call on 1 November 2022. Both the resident and the landlord have said that they had witnesses to the call, however there is disagreement as to which call the witnesses relate to. The Service does not doubt the resident’s word, however in the absence of call recordings, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to establish what was said during the calls in question, and we cannot therefore determine what was and what was not the case. It was reasonable for the landlord to investigate the resident’s complaint that a member of staff was rude to her but in the absence of call recordings the landlord was limited in the action it could take to address this and its response was appropriate under the circumstances. There is no obligation for landlords to have call recording mechanisms in place. However, it is recommended that the landlord consider whether recording its calls would be helpful to prevent disputes over what was said during phone calls, in future.
The landlord acted reasonably in agreeing to renew the kitchen. The replacement of a kitchen is deemed to be planned. The landlord’s repairs policy states that its timescale for completing planned works is 40 working days. This is reasonable because the landlord and/or its contractors may need to order replacement units, and book multiple tradespeople such as kitchen fitters, plumbers and electricians.
There was no obligation on the landlord to provide additional worktop space in the resident’s kitchen as this would be an improvement and the landlord is not required to carry out improvements, it is only required to maintain its properties and keep them in a good state of repair. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider whether this was feasible as part of the kitchen replacement. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident it would provide additional workspace, it said it would consider this and having considered it, the landlord decided not to increase the worktop space.
It is appropriate that the landlord apologised for its communication failures when trying to arrange a date to replace the kitchen floor tiles. Since the landlord’s stage 3 response to complaint B, the resident has asked the landlord whether she can install a cushioned floor. The landlord responded appropriately in providing the resident with contact details of its housing alterations department so that she could apply for permission to install a cushioned floor. The landlord should contact the resident to ask whether she still wishes to apply for permission to do this. If the resident no longer wishes to install a cushioned floor, the landlord is ordered to replace the kitchen floor tiles as originally planned.
The landlord acted reasonably in apologising for a gas engineer failing to ensure that the resident signed paperwork, a contractor leaving their equipment plugged in, and another contractor leaving their logbook in her property. However, it is recommended that the landlord remind its operatives and contractors of the procedures it expects anyone working on its behalf to adhere to. It should consider what it can learn from the resident’s experience of operatives and contractors working in her home. It should also consider drawing-up guidelines for contractors and operatives working in residents’ properties if it does not already have such guidelines in place, to help avoid such incidents happening in future.
It was reasonable that the landlord arranged to remove the plaster from the drain once the resident had reported this issue. It was appropriate that it offered the resident £50 compensation for the inconvenience this had caused her. This was a reasonable amount of compensation for this issue.
The landlord is ordered to inspect the following issues the resident has reported with the works it carried out to her kitchen: the cavity insulation, the wall unit, the worktop, the windowsill above the kitchen sink, the tiled windowsill, the unit doors and drawers, and the splashback. It should remedy any identified issues and if the landlord believes no further works are necessary, it should write to the resident and the Ombudsman to explain why.
Given the length, complexity and number of the resident’s complaints about the repairs in her property, it may be helpful for the landlord to offer the resident a single point of contact within the organisation to help rebuild trust and avoid confusion going forward.
The landlord’s errors in its handling of the works to the resident’s kitchen amount to maladministration. As noted above, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where maladministration has been identified which adversely affected the resident, compensation of £100-£600 should be considered. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 for the time, trouble and inconvenience in its handling of the works to her kitchen. This is in addition to the £100 compensation it offered the resident in response to her complaint of 19 October 2022.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the inspection of repairs it completed in 2020 and 2021.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the works to the resident’s kitchen.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that the Ombudsman is provided with evidence of compliance by the same date:
1. Inspect the bedroom window, the front door, the staircase wall, the handrail on the stairs, and the skirting board under the stairs, and repair any issues it identifies. If the landlord believes no further works are necessary, it should write to the resident and the Ombudsman to explain why.
2. Inspect the following issues the resident has reported with the works it carried out to her kitchen: the cavity insulation, the wall unit, the worktop, the windowsill above the kitchen sink, the tiled windowsill, the unit doors and drawers, and the splashback and repair any issues it identifies. If the landlord believes no further works are necessary, it should write to the resident and the Ombudsman to explain why.
3. Contact the resident to see whether she still wishes to seek permission from it to install a cushioned kitchen floor. If she does not, it should replace the kitchen floor tiles.
4. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its handling of the inspection to the repairs it carried out in 2020 and 2021.
5. Pay the resident £250 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its handling of the works to her kitchen.
6. It should also pay the resident the £450 compensation it offered her on 24 October 2022 and the £50 compensation it offered her on 17 May 2023, if it has not done so already.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Responds to the resident’s request that it inspect the damp on the kitchen ceiling and under the kitchen window, replace the kitchen doors, move the kitchen radiator and fit patio doors, repair the bathroom door, replace all interior doors in the property, replace the gates to the drive and the gate to the steps up to the house, provide keys to the window locks, secure flagstones in the garden and on the drive, and take measures to prevent the garden sliding down the path.
2. Considers sending residents written confirmation prior to repair inspections to ensure that it is clear in advance what issues it is there to inspect.
3. Considers whether recording its calls would be helpful in dealing with future complaints from residents about how they have been spoken to by the landlord’s staff over the phone.
4. Reminds its operatives and contractors of the procedures it expects anyone working on its behalf to adhere to. It should consider what it can learn from the resident’s experience of operatives and contractors working in her home. It should also consider drawing-up guidelines for contractors and operatives working in residents’ properties if it does not already have such guidelines in place.
5. Considers offering the resident a single point of contact within the organisation for repairs to help rebuild trust, if the resident feels this would be beneficial.