Accent Housing Limited (202213385)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213385

Accent Group Limited

3 April 2023

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 concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. The replacement of the resident’s kitchen.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has several recorded vulnerabilities registered for the resident, which include issues with mobility. The resident’s daughter corresponded on behalf of the resident throughout the duration of this complaint. For clarity, both the resident and her daughter will be referred to as ‘the resident’ for the purposes of this report.

Summary of Events

In October 2020 discussions were underway regarding the installation of the resident’s new kitchen, as part of a larger planned program of kitchen refurbishment works being carried out by the landlord. However, in November 2020 it was agreed that the planned works to the resident’s kitchen would be put on hold so that an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment could be completed, as the resident had concerns about accessibility due to her mobility issues.
A proposed plan (kitchen specification design) of the intended works was signed and agreed by the resident on 19 January 2021, prior to the OT assessment taking place. This included a note, dated 13 January 2021, stating that it had been agreed, at the resident’s request, that the hatch in the kitchen would be removed to incorporate more cupboard space.
Due to delays in getting an OT assessment, the landlord arranged a private OT assessment. The OT assessment was carried out on 13 February 2021, which recommended that:
1. One cupboard should have pull down baskets, to enable the resident to access essentials when she chooses to cook a meal for her family, as she had difficulties reaching the top shelf of her kitchen cupboards.
2. The corner base unit should be amended to incorporate a carousel so the resident can access tins from a seated position.
No further kitchen adaptations were recommended.
The resident has said that she was informed by a member of the landlord’s staff around this time that the funds to complete the installation were not available for the current year and therefore the kitchen replacement would take place after April 2021. The landlord’s contact records show that the resident’s support worker contacted the landlord subsequently on 16 June 2021, 7 July 2021 and on 18 October 2021 to chase a date for when the kitchen installation would commence. A formal complaint about the landlord’s lack of communication was raised on 18 October 2021. The resident also called on 20 October 2021 to ask why the kitchen replacement had not been carried out.
On 22 October 2021 the landlord’s records show that it called the resident to confirm it was looking to complete the kitchen installation before Christmas 2021. It was noted that the resident asked whether the second drawings for the kitchen design had been completed, to which the landlord replied that it was its understanding that the kitchen design could not be altered at this stage. The landlord’s records note that during a subsequent phone call on 5 November 2021 the landlord confirmed that, due to the layout of the kitchen, it would not be possible to carry out the OT assessment’s recommendations.
The landlord’s records note that the resident’s support worker called on 10 November 2021 and asked why the adaptations could not be implemented and to highlight that the kitchen design drawings denoted the incorrect colour scheme. The records note a call afterwards with the resident on 11 November 2021. During the call the landlord arranged a visit to review the kitchen design, discuss the feasibility of incorporating the OT recommendations, and to set a date for the installation.
According to the landlord’s records a visit took place on 17 November 2021 to review the kitchen design and colour options. The notes state that, following this discussion, the resident was happy for the installation to go ahead and it was agreed that works could begin on 22 November 2021.
The kitchen renewal was completed on 29 November 2021. During the installation period, it is evident that further changes to the design were made upon request of the resident.
On 1 December 2021 the landlord’s records note that the resident’s support worker contacted the landlord to inform it that the resident was unable to use the kitchen following the installation. A post-work inspection was carried out on 2 December 2021 which concluded that the kitchen had been installed well. However, the resident was not happy with the drawers installed as they were not the ones she had agreed to as part of the original plan. The resident wanted a three drawer set rather than the four-drawer set installed, which would provide more depth to store pans.
The landlord’s records show that the resident called on 15 December 2021 to reiterate her dissatisfaction with the kitchen design, believing the installation to be substandard, that the drawers and wall cupboard were not deep enough, and it had not reconnected her cooker.
A further inspection was carried out on 5 January 2022. The landlord’s records note that this was when the resident made her ‘initial verbal complaint’. It was noted that the resident was dissatisfied with a number of aspects such as:
1. The kitchen design had changed since it was initially agreed.
2. She had not seen the OT assessment that was carried out in order to ensure that the kitchen was accessible for her.
3. The work tops and colour of the kitchen were not what was initially agreed.
4. That her neighbour had a larger wall cupboard.
5. She had wanted a three-drawer rather than a four-drawer pack so that she could store her pans. She said this had changed from the original drawings.
6. She had informed the landlord and the contractor that this kitchen was different to the one that she had agreed to, yet no one got back to her when she raised this.
7. She had to wait one-and-a-half weeks for the gas cooker to be installed. She had to arrange this herself and had not been reimbursed for the cost (£80.00) of doing so.
The resident explained that the new design was impacting her ability to use the kitchen. As an outcome she wanted a wall cupboard with more depth and she wanted a three-drawer pack rather than a four.
In a letter, dated 7 January 2022, described to this Service as an ‘Early Resolution Complaint’, it provided the OT assessment and offered the following solutions:
1. Regarding the wall cupboard, the landlord confirmed that, since the visit on 5 January 2022, this was confirmed as the same size as her neighbour’s. In regard to the depth, the landlord confirmed that it could arrange to remove the existing wall cupboard (300mm) and replace this with a deeper one (390mm), though it caveated this by asking that she be mindful of the potential impact when preparing food as this cupboard would protrude more.
2. Having reviewed the kitchen range that it had installed, the landlord confirmed that it did not offer a three-drawer pack to fit in the space that was available. The nearest drawer pack that provided deeper drawers would be a two-drawer pack, which it said it could arrange to install in place of the four-drawer pack. In addition, it said it could also install a spice rack on the kitchen wall.
3. Regarding the snagging areas that have not been finished, the landlord confirmed that this had been raised and the contractor would attend to complete the work.
4. The landlord confirmed that it would reimburse her the £80.00 to cover the costs of the gas cooker installation.
The landlord concluded by asking the resident to contact it to arrange to undertake the above suggestions.
In a letter, dated 14 February 2022, the resident said:
1. She would like the deeper wall cupboard, as suggested, but queried whether this would block access to the other top units.
2. She wanted a three-drawer pack and not a two or a four, as this was what she had agreed to. She asked if the original three-draw pack was available and said she did not require the spice rack.
3. She would like to know if the landlord had found out why she was not given the same kitchen as other residents.
In the landlord’s letter, dated 14 March 2022, described to this Service as its stage one response, the landlord said:
1. It was happy that the resident had accepted the offer of the deeper wall cupboard and, therefore, to ensure that this would not block access to the other cupboard, it would like to arrange to visit the property.
2. The manufacturer’s kitchen installed does have a three-drawer pack in its range. But it explained that the reason it could not fit this was due to the changes the resident requested to the corner cupboard (to the left-hand side and under sink) during the installation. The three-drawer packs come in either a 300mm or 600mm size. The space that was left following the changes was 400mm and there was only a two or four drawer pack available in a 400mm space; this would be the same if the original manufacturer had installed the kitchen. Consequently, the only option was to replace the four-drawer pack with a two-drawer pack.
3. It had changed the manufacturer of the kitchen to try and speed up the installation. And because the original contractor could not install the kitchen, it therefore arranged for an alternative contractor to fit the kitchen, who did not purchase kitchens from the original manufacturer.
In the resident’s letter, dated 25 April 2022, , she contended that:
1. The suggestions the landlord had come up with did not resolve the matter to satisfy her needs.
2. She had informed the landlord, the kitchen fitter and the contractor prior to and during the installation that the kitchen was not suitable for her needs and it was not the kitchen she had signed for and agreed to. The response to her concerns were either ignored or she was informed by the kitchen fitter and the contractor that it would be suitable.
3. The landlord had made an assumption that by changing the manufacturer of the kitchen this would not matter. Moreover, she said she was not informed of the change nor did it listen to her concerns when she realised there were differences in the specifications of the kitchen design. This she said was not just the size of the drawer pack but also the taps in the kitchen, which were now turning taps rather than the agreed to, and easier to use, push-up/push-down taps.
She ended by stating that she had not signed nor agreed to any of this and was being asked to live with the changes that were unacceptable. To resolve the matter, she wanted the kitchen she had agreed to and would not settle for anything less.
In the landlord’s letter, dated 27 May 2022, it contending that:
1. It had worked with the resident to install the kitchen that she was happy with. It explained that the resident agreed and signed a copy of the plan on 19 January 2021. Within this plan the landlord agreed to change the colour of the kitchen from white gloss to grey. At the time of the plan being agreed, it was using the original manufacturer to supply its kitchens. It delayed the kitchen installation as per the resident’s request so that it could facilitate an OT assessment to be completed. As a result, when it came to install the kitchen in November 2021, it was no longer able to use kitchens that were supplied by the original manufacturer.
2. The kitchen installed was the closest match to her original choice. Whilst this was not exactly the same, it believed that the colour differences did not affect the overall aesthetic finish to the kitchen, and that the change in kitchen supplier had not compromised the quality of the kitchen.
3. While it was true that her neighbour’s wall cupboard had a slightly larger depth of 30mm, it had made an offer to replace this and increase the depth, which the resident originally agreed to on 14 February 2022 only to change her mind recently by asking for a full kitchen replacement. It noted that designs of kitchens will likely vary from property to property depending on the measurements of each kitchen.
4. The nearest drawer pack to provide her with deeper drawers would be a two-drawer pack, which it could arrange to install. This was due to the kitchen range installed not having the space available. It was also be prepared to install a spice rack on the kitchen wall.
5. The OT assessment report did not recommend that it install push-down taps and even so it did not install these type of taps.
In conclusion, it did not uphold the complaint on the basis that the kitchen that it had installed met its kitchen specification, that it had listened to the resident’s feedback and provided her with additional options to resolve the matters raised, and that it had tried to meet the needs of her and her family. As such, it did not believe that her request to replace the kitchen was reasonable.
In the resident’s letter, dated 6 June 2022, she explained that she was not aware of the change in manufacturer and thereby the consequences that this would have on her and her family. She said the changes that impacted her most were the taps and the drawers. She said she had not mentioned the taps previously because the initial plan devised with the original manufacturer supplied the taps that met her needs. It was not until the fitting began that she realised the taps had changed, which she contended made a significant difference in view of her disability. She therefore requested that the landlord change the taps to push-down taps.
Moreover, she said that there were alterations under the sink that meant the drawer pack needed to change size which she, too, was not informed about. If she had been informed, she said that she would not have agreed to this as she required the wider three-drawer pack. As a compromise, she requested to have deeper wall cupboards, keeping the current drawer pack as it was. She did not require the spice rack.
In the landlord’s response letter, which was not dated (although from information provided this was likely sent on 14 June 2022), it was unable to agree to the resident’s proposal. First, it said it was unable to determine what push-down taps were. Second, that the OT assessment did not specify a type of tap. And finally, that the OT assessment did not recommend deeper cupboards.
It did however advise the resident that, if her health deteriorated, she could arrange for a further OT assessment and the landlord would implement any further recommendations. Furthermore, it said it would honour the offer that had already been made: to install one deeper kitchen unit (wall cupboard) and install a two-drawer pack.
According to the landlord the resident escalated the complaint on 10 July 2022 due to:
1. The resident believing that the new kitchen did not meet the requirement of the OT assessment that was carried out.
2. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had changed manufacturers.
To bring the complaint to a satisfactory resolution, it stated the resident would like to have push-taps fitted and for the kitchen units to be replaced.
In the landlord’s response, dated 28 July 2022, it explained that, due to the design of the kitchen, it was unable to fulfil the following recommendations:
1. For one cupboard to have pull down baskets.
2. For the corner base unit to have a carousal.
It said there were no other recommendations to be considered. The landlord reiterated its stance on the change in manufacturer, its position on the taps, and that it would not replace the kitchen. In conclusion, the landlord did not uphold the complaint, contending that it had followed, where possible, the OT assessment’s recommendations. It also said it had made reasonable adjustments outside of these recommendations by removing the serving hatch to provide more storage space. Furthermore, the previous offer made – to change one double wall cupboard to provide an additional depth of 30mm, and to change the four-drawer pack to a two-drawer pack – was also reasonable as adequate storage had been provided in line the size of the property.
The resident brought her complaint to this Service on 22 September 2022 as she remained dissatisfied that the kitchen installed did not meet her needs. She contended that the original kitchen design, agreed in January 2021, met the resident’s needs, whereas the one installed in November 2021 did not. What is more, the new design was fitted without prior notice of the changes nor consideration that the changes were not suitable. Consequently, the resident was now unable to access cupboards and drawers. She said she had challenged the changes at the start of the fitting process but these were disregarded by the landlord and the fitters. As a resolution, the resident would like a further OT assessment to be undertaken, because the landlord believed that it had made suitable offers to alter the kitchen to meet her needs but these had been made without assessing the needs of the resident.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s Aids and Adaptation policy stipulates that it has a duty of care to make reasonable adjustments to a property where a customer is at a disadvantage due to a disability. A major adaptation, such as an adapted kitchen installation, requires an Occupation Therapy Assessment Report. As part of the approval process, the landlord will investigate the suitability of the proposed adaptation/s and decide whether a customer’s needs can be met in other ways. Particularly with larger-scale adaptations, the landlord will need to exhaust all other available options before approving these works, and these will only be undertaken at landlord’s discretion. Following a request for an adaptation, it says that it will ensure timely information and advice is communicated.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will pay compensation when it has failed to provide services, or the quality of the service provided has fallen below its agreed standards, which includes adequate response times.
The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a four-stage complaint process:
1. Early Resolution – whereby it aims to acknowledge and/or discuss the matter with the customer within 24 hours. A formal complaint should be raised if an issue cannot be immediately resolved.
2. Manager Investigation – whereby it aims to acknowledge and/or discuss the matter with the customer within 24 hours. It aims to respond to the customer with what actions it will take to resolve the matter within five working days.
3. Director Investigation – whereby the director investigating the case will aim to acknowledge and/or discuss the matter with the customer within 24 hours and aim to respond to the customer with what actions he or she will take to resolve the matter within five working days.
4. External Review – Director Investigation is the last stage within its internal process. Once a customer has been through the internal process, they have the right to refer their complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service.

The landlord’s handling of the replacement of the resident’s kitchen

The main dispute between the landlord and the resident is whether or not the kitchen installed in the resident’s property met the needs of the resident. In other words, was the kitchen installed suitable in view of the resident’s mobility issues. To establish this, a landlord will usually rely on the expert opinion of an occupational therapist, who will perform an examination (OT assessment) of the resident/s and the property, and make recommendations on what adjustments could be considered, to ensure a safe environment for the resident/s.
In this case, due to the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the kitchen adaptation, the landlord facilitated an OT assessment on 13 February 2021, which recommended two adaptations: first, that one cupboard should have pull down baskets; and, second, that the corner base unit should be amended to incorporate a carousel. As these were the only established requirements to ensure that the kitchen met the needs of the resident, the landlord, in accordance with its Aids and Adaptation policy, had a duty of care to make reasonable adjustments to the property where she was at a disadvantage due to a disability.
That said, the policy caveats this by stating that works are undertaken at the landlord’s discretion and, particularly with larger-scale adaptations, the landlord will need to exhaust all other available options before approving these works. As such, it should investigate the suitability of the proposed adaptation/s and decide whether a customer’s needs can be met in other ways.
In this case, it became apparent that, due to the layout of the kitchen, it would not be possible to carry out the OT assessment’s recommendations. As a result, the landlord, in accordance with its Aids and Adaptation policy, discussed alternative ways in which the needs of the resident could be met. According to the landlord’s records, this took place on 17 November 2021, whereby both parties reviewed the kitchen design, discussed the feasibility of incorporating the OT recommendations, and set a date for the installation. It is clear that the issue was discussed, as per the Aids and Adaptation policy stipulates it should, and both parties agreed for the work to go ahead afterward. Furthermore, the inability to implement the OT assessment’s two recommendations did not form part of the resident’s subsequent complaint.
It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange an OT assessment and when it identified that it could not follow the recommendations, the landlord looked to discuss alternative measures, which resulted in the kitchen installation being approved to go ahead. In view of the above, the landlord’s response to the OT assessment was reasonable and in line with its obligations.
Likewise, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns after the kitchen installation was also reasonable, as the resident’s three main concerns raised (the depth of the wall cupboard, the depth of the drawer pack, and the style of taps) were each investigated, with the landlord either providing adequate alternative solutions or it making clear its position. As these items did not form part of the OT recommendations, there was no obligation for the landlord to implement these. Nevertheless, there was an expectation that the landlord would address each aspect and respond accordingly.
In its letter, dated 7 January 2022, the landlord offered to increase the depth of the wall cupboard, to provide more storage space, and it proposed that, to provide deeper drawers so that the resident could house her pots and pans, it would replace the current four-drawer pack with a two-drawer pack. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that these suggestions would provide reasonable, alternative solutions to these two particular concerns. Incidentally, it is noted that the resident, on 6 June 2022, and at other points during the complaints process, was agreeable to the wall-cupboard suggestion, requesting as a compromise to have the deeper wall cupboard installed, but keep the current drawer pack as it was (as a four-pack). It is therefore recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss which solution would be best and agree a way forward.
In regard to the kitchen taps, the landlord clearly explained its rationale as to why it could not change the taps from turning taps to push up/down taps. While this was frustrating for the resident as this change in design was not communicated (which will be discussed shortly), an alternative solution could not be found as the preferred taps were not available from the manufacturer. And, because the taps were not identified as part of the OT assessment, there was no obligation to consider anything further.
Nevertheless, when changes, however minimal, are made to a design or specification, the onus would be on the landlord to communicate this change effectively. It would have been helpful, for instance, for the landlord to have informed the resident of the implications following the changes agreed and undertaken during the installation. In other words, what the alterations under the sink meant for the size of the drawer pack.
It would have been beneficial, too, had the landlord informed the resident of the change of manufacturer prior to the installation. It was reasonable for the landlord to change manufacturer and it was entitled to choose whichever manufacturer it wished to, provided it provided a kitchen that was fit for purpose and of acceptable quality. However, it would have been helpful if the change of manufacturer, and the implications that this would have to the design (e.g. the colour and the taps), had been communicated to the resident prior to the installation.
It is therefore understandable that the resident felt frustrated that this was not the kitchen she had signed for and agreed to, as this was apparent in some instances. On balance, though, this has to be considered as part of an ever-changing situation, one in which the evidence demonstrates that the landlord was adaptable and customer-focused in its approach to the resident’s concerns pre, during, and post installation of the kitchen in order that it find the best solution for the resident. For example, it agreed to pause the kitchen renewal works in November 2020 so that an OT assessment could be undertaken, one that it had facilitated privately to hasten the process; it also agreed to remove the serving hatch to provide more storage space; and it reimbursed the resident the £80.00 for the cost of re-fitting the gas cooker.
The landlord provided the resident with the option to undertake another OT assessment. This further demonstrated that it was trying to facilitate and accommodate the best possible solution for the resident. And, if it is the case that the current kitchen does not meet the needs of the resident and is indeed inaccessible, there is opportunity here to substantiate this through another OT assessment, if appropriate. It will therefore be recommended that the landlord re-offer the opportunity for the resident to undertake a further OT assessment.
The landlord had a duty of care to ensure that timely information and advice was communicated, as stated in its Aids and Adaptation policy, so that the resident was well informed of the next steps and expectations. This, though, was not always the case and the landlord fell short of its expectations on occasions. There was a delay in informing the resident when the kitchen replacement would take place, following the OT assessment on 13 February 2021. The resident has said she was informed by a member of the landlord’s staff that it would take place after April 2021, yet it was not until 22 October 2021 that the landlord’s records show it called the resident to confirm that it was looking to complete the kitchen installation before Christmas 2021, some six months later. Meanwhile, according to the landlord’s records, the resident’s support worker (on 16 June, 7 July and 18 October 2021) and the resident herself (on 20 October 2021) spent some time attempting to contact the landlord to chase a date for when the kitchen installation would commence.
During this period, the resident had reported, on 16 September 2021, that two kitchen cupboards had fallen and a repair was needed. This does not necessarily mean the landlord could have installed the kitchen any quicker than it did. Landlords are entitled to schedule major works such as full kitchen replacements in advance as a means of managing their limited resources as social landlords effectively, to the benefit of all residents. If the kitchen was unusable or unsafe due to urgent repair issues, the landlord would be expected to carry out temporary repairs until the replacement could reasonably be scheduled. Nonetheless, it is clear that the kitchen was in need of updating and likely in poor condition. Therefore, the landlord should have explained the next steps clearly to manage the resident’s expectations. The lack of communication, however, would have avoidable caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
While it was understandable that the installation was delayed initially in November 2020 and put on hold whilst the OT assessment could be undertaken, the expectation, following the OT assessment in February 2021, was on the landlord to communicate effectively and in a timely fashion so that the resident was fully aware of when the installation would commence. As the landlord did not do so, this was a failing by the landlord.
Similarly, it was not until 5 November 2021 that the resident was told that the two OT assessment recommendations could not be implemented. This was almost nine months after the OT assessment had taken place on 13 February 2021. The OT recommendations were discussed shortly before the installation and the works were agreed to go ahead subsequently. Nevertheless, communication regarding the OT recommendations should have been provided in a timely manner so that the implications of this could be discussed and potentially mitigated at the earliest opportunity. This too was a failing by the landlord.
The landlord has not adequately recognised the impact that its poor communication has had on the resident, especially in terms of the length of the delay, the time and trouble spent trying to establish when the installation would commence, the lack of timely information regarding the OT’s recommendations, and the overall distress and inconvenience caused. In view of this, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £300. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this amount provides adequate redress to put things right for the service failures identified. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) as well as the landlord’s own compensation policy, where it states the landlord should pay compensation for the quality of the service provided falling below its agreed standards, which includes adequate response times.
In summary, while it is evident that the landlord had attempted to work with the resident to resolve the resident’s concerns, there were some communication issues that were not recognised and thereby not addressed during its internal complaints procedure As such, this Service has found an overall finding of maladministration for its handling of the replacement of the resident’s kitchen.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy provides for a four-stage complaint procedure, with the fourth stage being the referral to the Ombudsman if a resident remains dissatisfied. Essentially, therefore, there are three stages to the landlord’s complaint process: Early Resolution, Manager Investigation and Director Investigation. At each stage they should be acknowledged within 24 hours and formal responses for the Manager and Director stage provided within five working days. In this case, however, there were numerous occasions where the landlord did not adhere to its complaint policy in terms of timescales as well as adhering to the defined number of stages.
First, the landlord recorded the original complaint as being made on 5 January 2022 rather than on 18 October 2021. The evidence shows that the resident’s support worker raised the initial complaint on 18 October 2021 in relation to the lack of contact regarding when the kitchen installation would commence. The landlord’s records confirm that a complaint was raised at the time. Moreover, the resident’s support worker called again on 10 November 2021 to add to the complaint concerns that the kitchen design drawings did not match what was agreed initially (re. colour scheme) and that the resident did not understand why the adaptations could not be made. The landlord noted here that a follow-up date for the complaint was set for 11 November 2021. Furthermore, another note was added on 18 November 2021 which said it would update the complaint case. There is no further mention of the initial complaint.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that if the communication had been more timely, clear and effective – as discussed earlier – then there may have been the potential to lessen the impact on the resident. As such, this should have been reviewed as an overall complaint about the handling of the kitchen installation as a whole and therefore the issue raised after the installation should have been included in the complaint raised in October 2021 as many aspects overlapped. Consequently, the landlord missed the opportunity to review and investigate its handling of the kitchen installation in its entirety through its complaints process.
Similarly, the landlord’s formal complaint response, dated 7 January 2022, should not have been considered as an Early Resolution response, as it was beyond the point at which the issue could be immediately resolved, as per its complaints policy. Not only was a complaint already open, it was clear that the issues raised could not be resolved within the stipulated 24 hours and thus a formal complaint should have been raised at this point instead – or in this case added to the already-opened complaint.
What is more, the response itself did not stipulate what stage of the complaint process the resident was at; nor did it confirm the outcome of the complaint or provide details of how to escalate the complaint if the resident remains dissatisfied. This is not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (available on our website) which states that “At the completion of each stage of the complaints process the landlord should write to the resident advising them of the following:
1. the complaint stage
2. the outcome of the complaint
3. the reasons for any decisions made
4. the details of any remedy offered to put things right
5. details of any outstanding actions
6. details of how to escalate the matter if dissatisfied.
Equally, what should have been considered as the resident’s escalation on 14 February 2022 was treated instead as the resident’s response to the Early Resolution, despite being over a month after the landlord’s response on 7 January 2022. And, as with the Early Resolution letter, the landlord’s formal response, dated 14 March 2022, described to this Service as its stage one complaint response, presumably meaning the Manager-Stage, did not include the complaint stage, the outcome, and the details of how to escalate the matter if dissatisfied.
Things did improve when the landlord’s formal response, dated 27 May 2022, described to this Service as its stage two response, did specify that it was the final response from it at the Manager Stage of its complaints process and did provide an outcome and details of how to escalate the matter.
There were two more formal complaint responses to follow: one that was undated but was in response to the resident’s escalation letter of 6 June 2022, which was, for the second time, described as the final stage of the Manager Investigation stage of its internal complaints process; and the other was the Director Investigation Response, dated 28 July 2022.
Additionally, the landlord did not adhere to the timeframes (five working days) to respond to the complaints, as per its complaint policy, on the majority of occasions. For example, the resident escalated her complaint on 14 February 2022, yet the landlord did not provide the formal response until 14 March 2022. This happened again when the resident escalated her complaint on 25 April 2022 she did not receive the response until 27 May 2022. Furthermore, the resident escalated her complaint on 10 July 2022 yet did not receive the formal response until 28 July 2022.
Lastly, the resident has said she had informed both the landlord and the contractors of her concerns about the changes to the kitchen design before and during the installation itself, yet no one got back to her when she raised this. As this was likely a verbal interaction, much like the discussions with the contractors when changes were agreed during the installation, it cannot be substantiated in the evidence provided. However, this was raised as part of the resident’s complaint and therefore the expectation would be for the landlord to address the specific communication concerns raised. This was not explicitly addressed during the landlord’s internal complaint procedure which also not in line with the Code, which states that “Landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate”.
All in all, the landlord had provided five formal complaint responses instead of two; it did not adhere, for the most part, to the timescales to provide a response as per its complaints policy; and it did not adhere to the stipulations regarding clear communication and addressing all points of the complaint, as per the Complaints Handling Code. Above all, it missed the opportunity to address its handling of the complaint holistically by seemingly starting a new complaint in January 2022 rather than adding to the one already open from October 2021. As a result, the complaint process was unnecessarily protracted, which meant further time and trouble as well as inconvenience for the resident.
In view of the above identified failings, this Service has made an overall finding of maladministration for the landlord’s complaint handling. To put matters right, the landlord is ordered to pay a further £200 compensation which takes into consideration the delays, the time and trouble, the poor communication throughout the complaints process, and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord is also recommended to review its complaint handling practices in correspondence with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord for its handling of the replacement of the resident’s kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord for its complaint handling.

Orders

In view of the failings identified in this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £500 compensation broken down as follows:
1. £300 for the failings identified for its handling of the kitchen installation.
2. £200 for the failings identified during its complaint handling.
The compensation should be paid within four weeks from the date of this decision.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord re-offers the following:
1. The opportunity for the resident to undertake a further OT assessment of the kitchen.
2. To contact the resident to discuss which solution regarding the wall cupboard and the drawer pack would be best and, once decided, to implement the resident’s preference.
The landlord should review its complaint handling practices in correspondence with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code, identify any lessons that can be learnt and implement any changes which may be needed to the processes, staff training and policies in view of this.