Arcon Housing Association Limited (202302989)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302989

Arcon Housing Association Limited

31 August 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of kitchen and boiler upgrade works, including the ventilation fan.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos within the property.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She resides in a ground floor studio flat situated in a low rise block.
The landlord carried out a kitchen survey in December 2021 following the resident’s reports of a leak and subsequent damp issues. As a result of this visit it was decided that the landlord would replace the kitchen, boiler and install a new ventilation fan as the ducts on the existing fan were blocked.
In June 2022 the resident chased the landlord for an update. The resident said that the kitchen assessment had been delayed on 2 occasions due to no response from the landlord or because of surveyors leaving the organisation and an insufficient handover process.
The landlord visited the property on 3 August 2022, discussed kitchen options with the resident and agreed a working plan for installation. This was then sent to the resident for sign off.
Throughout August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions with some queries, she wanted to know:
1. The timescales for the kitchen refit
2. If not yet known, could the ventilation fans be cleared as the odour was becoming overwhelming
3. Could she have a copy of the asbestos report
4. Would the landlord be repairing or replacing the faulty smoke alarms during the kitchen refit.
Between September – October 2022 the resident and the landlord exchanged several emails in relation to the refit plans. The resident had requested some alterations which she didn’t feel had been reflected in the amended design. The landlord said that it was unable to agree to all changes as some of the requests did not meet the legal kitchen design standards. During this period the resident was also provided with a full cost breakdown which she was asked to approve.
On 28 October 2022 following a further email from the resident, the landlord responded to say that the involved surveyor had now left the organisation. The resident asked who would now be overseeing the refit, there is no evidence that the landlord responded. On 1 November 2022 the resident was informed that the landlord had now changed contractor and that the new company would be in contact to progress the works.
In November 2022 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of:
1. The kitchen refit process and communication
2. The high turnover of staff and their conduct
3. The repair to the ventilation unit
4. The asbestos within the property.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 15 December 2022. It said:
1. It was deemed that the initial kitchen design was not compliant with building regulations or Decent Homes Standards, nor did it meet with the landlord’s internal Kitchen Programme Specifications. It acknowledged that this should have been picked up and apologised. It confirmed that the job had been passed to a different provider.
2. The high turnover of staff was a result of a competitive market and a shortage of qualified surveyors. It agreed that this should not affect the service offered and apologised. It also apologised for the poor communication and offered the resident a single point of contact going forward.
3. In response to the concerns about staff conduct the individual in question denied all allegations made.
4. An asbestos report was carried out on 16 October 2017. Asbestos was present in floor tiles of lounge, hallway, bathroom and store but it was not disturbed so did not need removing. All staff were trained, and landlord would not put residents at risk.
5. To put things right it would be in contact to arrange a convenient date to meet and formalise a plan.
Following the resident’s escalation of the complaint the landlord carried out a home visit. It summarised this within its stage 2 response on 7 February 2023. It said:
1. The resident had received a ‘poor level of service’ in relation to the kitchen and boiler upgrade. This was a result of changes to staff, insufficient handovers and poor record keeping. A new system had been implemented to improve this.
2. The stage 1 response did not provide adequate information about the kitchen refit and the decisions made.
3. The stage 1 response in relation to staff conduct was not appropriate.
4. The resident experienced an unacceptable service in relation to the repair / replacement of the ventilation fans. A £100 gesture of goodwill had been paid in respect of this.

In resolution of the complaint, the landlord offered:

An onsite redesign of the kitchen, offering choice where possible.
A full project management approach including a named officer responsible for scheduling and overseeing.
Compensation of £250 for time, trouble and inconvenience plus the provision and installation of tiles in addition to any other fixtures in the kitchen, e.g. Blinds, shelving.

The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman in April 2023 stating that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She wanted a comprehensive plan of works and re-assurances about the landlord’s ability to appropriately manage its obligations to residents.
During a recent telephone call the resident has informed this Service that the boiler upgrade was completed in September 2023 and the kitchen refit the following month. She has however, reported some follow on works to the landlord which remain outstanding.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of kitchen and boiler upgrade, including the ventilation fan.

In accordance with the Decent Home Standard, the lifetime of a kitchen in a house or bungalow is 30 years. Moreover, criterion C of the Decent Homes Standard states that a dwelling is considered not to meet this criterion if it lacks three or more of the following facilities:
1. A kitchen which is 20 years old or less
2. A kitchen with adequate space and layout
In addition, the occupancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the central heating installations.
Within the resident’s complaint she said that since the start of the kitchen refit process she had experienced a ‘revolving door of four surveyors’ and that this inconsistency had resulted in her having to chase the landlord and repeat herself on numerous occasions. The landlord acknowledged that there had been a high turn over of staff and that the handover process hadn’t been as smooth as it could have been. It said that it has since put systems in place to ensure that this does not happen in future.
The landlord also explained that they are currently experiencing a competitive market for surveyors and that staff shortages between 2020 and 2022 have impacted the management of the workload. Although it is recognised that the landlord acknowledged that its service fell short and it demonstrated a commitment to learn from this,it is evident that this inconsistency contributed to the overall delay in the kitchen upgrade, boiler replacement and fan repairs and inconvenienced the resident.
Furthermore, the landlord’s communication was poor throughout. The evidence shows that that the resident had to frequently chase the landlord for updates, many of her emails went unanswered or responses were sent to incorrect email addresses. The landlord did not proactively inform her of changes to staff and as a result she spent time and trouble emailing and chasing staff members who were no longer with the organisation.
The resident also expressed her concern that she was provided with an itemised costing for the kitchen refit and asked to sign off on this. The landlord said that it was not unusual that customers are asked to confirm that they are happy with the designs for new kitchens, however, it agreed that this was ‘over and above’ what it would expect a customer to review and apologised. It appropriately said that it had taken this learning on board to ensure that it only provides customers with information that is relevant for them. This error was concerning for the resident and further demonstrates a lack of appropriate management oversight.
It is clear from the evidence that issues arose regarding the kitchen design developed by the initial contractor. It is particularly concerning that these were not picked up until the change in contractor in November 2022, almost 11 months after the process began. The landlord acknowledged that the surveyor overseeing the kitchen renewal should have identified these issues at an earlier stage, said that it had been unable to establish why this did not happen and acknowledged a record keeping failure. It also said that it had increased the capacity of its property services team to ensure the right staff members are able to focus on making sure things are done correctly.
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 landlords to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision-making at the time. If this Service investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. 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 the landlord acknowledged that its poor record keeping contributed to the insufficient handover of information between surveyors. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that this failure also contributed to the overall delays and the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The resident said that she felt she was being penalised by the landlord for raising her concerns and that as a result her specific requests regarding the design of the kitchen were being ignored. The landlord responded to say that the ‘decisions made had not been personal or in response to her challenges’. It said that ‘where possible, it would meet customer’s desires to ensure customer satisfaction, however, it had to be extra cautious in relation to fire risks, ensuring it minimises this at every opportunity’. It is not disputed that the resident felt discriminated against and that lessons can be learnt on how to reduce the risk of in such interpretation the future. However, based on the evidence provided, this was a reasonable response from the landlord.
In addition to the kitchen refit the resident also required a new boiler. It is not clear from the evidence if this was due to the boilers age or its reliability. It was however agreed by both parties that this would be scheduled to coincide with the refit to minimise disruption. This was reasonable and is not disputed that the resident continued to receive appointment requests from gas contractors despite the kitchen not progressing. This caused further avoidable inconvenience and confusion for the resident. This further evidences a lack of management oversight and project co-ordination from the landlord. The boiler upgrade was completed in September 2023, 20 months after the process began.
This failure was further demonstrated by the landlord’s handling of the ventilation fan repair. The evidence shows that despite the resident chasing this on numerous occasions throughout 2022, the landlord missed several opportunities to resolve the matter. The landlord admitted that the surveyor did not raise the job and that further errors occurred with the repair being allocated to the wrong contractor.
When a landlord is at fault, it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord failed to provide a sufficiently detailed response at stage 1 but did recognise this within its final complaint response. It offered transparent explanations regarding its failings and committed to service improvements.The landlord offered the resident £100 in recognition of the poor service in relation to the ventilation fan and £250 for the overall inconvenience caused by its handling of the kitchen refit. The Ombudsman therefore must decide whether the compensation offered is proportionate to the time, trouble and inconvenience caused and whether it has demonstrated sufficient learning to improve its future service provision.
In this case, the landlord acted appropriately in apologising to the resident and informing her of the lessons it had learned from her complaint. It clearly recognised and accepted that its service had been poor, and the actions it took to remedy that were, with one exception, reasonable and appropriate. The exception being the level of compensation it offered to the resident. The total amount offered of £350 was disproportionately low when the length of the delays is considered (20 months for the boiler, 22 months for the kitchen refit) and the detriment and distress caused to the resident. Therefore, an additional compensation award has been made to reflect this.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

The landlord’s disciplinary procedure states that ‘It is essential that certain standards of conduct and performance are maintained to ensure the smooth running and success of the Association’.
In this case the resident raised concerns about comments made by a surveyor during a home visit, she said that derogatory remarks were made about her home.
Upon receipt of the complaint the landlord spoke to the individual who denied the allegations. It also obtained a written statement from another member of staff who was also in attendance on the day. The landlord however failed to appropriately address this matter within its stage 1 response, simply stating that the allegations were denied. It is accepted that the landlord would not be able to share any disciplinary information with the resident due to confidentiality reasons. However, in responding to a complaint regarding staff conduct it would be appropriate for the landlord to share a reasonable and proportionate level of detail with the resident regarding its investigation and the outcome.
For example, the steps the landlord has taken to consider the resident’s allegations which may include staff interviews and review of its internal records. It is noted that the landlord did rectify this within its stage 2 response, although it was unable to make a clear decision on what occurred, it assured the resident that it had spoken to staff and contractors regarding acceptable behaviour.
In addition to the above complaint, the resident also raised concerns about another member of staff visiting her property and covertly recording the visit without her consent. The landlord said that it had spoken to the staff concerned and found no evidence that the visit had been recorded. It said that it appreciated how the resident may have made this assumption and has learnt from this. In the absence of conclusive evidence to support the resident’s claim we are unable to determine what occurred during this visit.
In summary, although there was a minor failure by the landlord failing to explain its response to the staff conduct allegation in its stage 1 response, it has since taken reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns and demonstrate learning.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos within the property.

The Health and Safety Executive (‘HSE’) guidance states that a landlord has a duty to manage asbestos in a building, it must protect people from the risks of exposure, including those who work in the building and people who ‘use them in other ways’. It further warns not to ‘remove asbestos unnecessarily – removing it can be more dangerous than leaving it in place and managing it’. It only recommends the removal of the asbestos if it is extensively damaged, and it is impossible to encapsulate it.
In August 2022, during negotiations about the kitchen design the resident queried the presence of asbestos within the kitchen floor tiles and requested a copy of the current asbestos report. In the interest of transparency and effective customer service it would have reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with a prompt response to her queries, however, there is no evidence that the landlord responded at all at this stage.
Following the residents complaint in November 2022, the landlord said that an asbestos survey was carried out in 2017. It confirmed that asbestos was identified in the floor tiles of the lounge, hallway, bedroom and store cupboard, however, it was undisturbed so did not need to be removed. Furthermore, it re-assured the resident that all appropriate staff are adequately trained.
The resident challenged this response as she remained concerned about the accuracy of the asbestos survey in relation to the kitchen. Within its stage 2 response the landlord said that during the 2017 survey it was unable to gain access into the kitchen as they were instructed not to cause damage, the resident disputes this and says that they did not attempt to access the kitchen or the bathroom. The landlord said that despite not gaining access into the kitchen, presumptions can be made about the presence of asbestos e.g. if the same floor tiles exist across the flats.
In addition, the landlord said that it was required to ‘provide an up-to-date asbestos report to its contractors. Therefore, existing asbestos surveys are valid unless asbestos has since been removed or disturbed. When doing major works we do need to ensure a refurbishment/demolition survey (R&D) is completed’. During its investigations, the landlord found that the most recent survey was a management survey, which is not as detailed. Therefore, confirmed that an R&D survey would be required prior to works starting. This was subsequently carried out.
In her communications with this Service, the resident said that the landlord did not carry out a further asbestos test prior to refitting her bathroom in 2020, therefore she did not believe that it would have done any asbestos testing when refitting the kitchen unless she had ‘pushed’ the matter. While we cannot make a determination on this assumption it is clear from the evidence that the landlord only instructed a further survey following the resident querying the requirement. It is also noted that despite several requests from the resident, the landlord failed to provide her with a copy of the 2017 asbestos survey.

In summary, the landlord failed to appropriately respond to the resident’s initial queries regarding the asbestos survey and its accuracy. Furthermore, at the time of this investigation it has not provided the resident with a copy of said report, despite her numerous requests. Although there is no evidence that the landlord failed to follow its policy and meet its obligations by carrying out an appropriate survey prior to the kitchen refit its failure to appropriately respond to the resident amounts to a service failure. The resident expended time and trouble chasing the landlord and its lack of response contributed to her distress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of kitchen and boiler upgrade, including the ventilation fan.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos within the property.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £800 comprising:
  1. £100 already offered in recognition of its handling of the ventilation fan repair and the time and trouble expended by the resident chasing the matter, if not already paid.
  2. £250 already offered in recognition of its handling of the kitchen refit, if not already paid.
  3. A further £400 for the additional failures identified in this report in relation to the kitchen refit and the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result.
  4. £50 for the landlord’s failure to appropriately respond to the resident’s request for a copy of the asbestos survey.
  5. The above amounts are to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against the rent account.
  6. The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with this order within the timescales set out above.
2. Respond to the resident’s request for a copy of the asbestos survey for the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a case review conducted by a senior manager. This review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. An exploration of why the failings identified in this report in regard to the kitchen and boiler works occurred.
2. The examination of its contract management and oversight to clarify the responsibility, processes and timescales for carrying out kitchen and boiler upgrades.
3. A plan to ensure that the resident experiences the same advice and levels of service from the landlord and its contractors. The contractors and landlord should be in full alignment when dealing with residents.
4. The landlord is to confirm compliance with this order to the Ombudsman within 10 weeks of the date of this report.