Bromford Housing Group Limited (202104357)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104357

Bromford Housing Group

12 October 2022

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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s offer of compensation in relation to the replacement of the kitchen.
   2. The handling of the associated formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord has advised that it had no listed vulnerabilities for the resident’s household, although the resident noted that she had limited mobility and was awaiting a hip-replacement at the time of the kitchen refurbishment.
3. In October 2020, the landlord surveyed the kitchen and created a plan for its replacement under its planned investment programme. Works began on 12 January 2021 but were halted by the resident on 19 January 2021 as she was not happy with the quality of the work or the storage space lost in her kitchen as a result of the depth and height of the new units. She also raised concerns that the gaps left for her appliances were larger than expected. In addition, she advised that she was not told that her tiles were due to be replaced with vinyl flooring. The landlord visited the property on 20 January 2021 to discuss her concerns. The resident then raised a complaint regarding these issues on 4 February 2021 and added that she was informed that the kitchen would be a like-for-like replacement and was dissatisfied that this was not the case.
4. Following a visit to the property on 10 February 2021, the landlord provided a stage one response to the complaint dated 16 February 2021. It apologised that the resident was led to believe that the new kitchen would be an exact match. It said that it would review the consultation process to ensure that residents were aware that whilst the layout would be like-for-like, there could be some differences. It explained that it needed to follow a set design specification and confirmed the details of the required measurement for each appliance. It agreed to order bespoke units of a larger size to allow for storage space and ceramic floor tiles of the resident’s choice up to the value of £12 per m2. The resident then agreed that the works could continue.
5. The landlord’s records show that the work to install the new units, level the flooring and lay new tiles took place between 3 – 19 March 2021. Following this, there were several appointments to level the worktop and unit doors, and to replace the unit handles and fix the dishwasher tap.
6. In May 2021 the landlord apologised for the length of time it had taken to complete works, and offered the resident a total of £310 compensation for the five weeks it had calculated that the resident was without full use of her kitchen whilst the works were halted, and for four additional appointments required to fix snagging issues. The resident expressed dissatisfaction at the amount, and explained that she had experienced 15 weeks without a ‘decent kitchen’ with some weeks being unable to use it properly at all, and that she had to complete some of the works as the contractors had failed to do so. In response the landlord increased the offer to £410, comprised of £310 for the five weeks, and £60 for the additional visits.
7. The resident again expressed dissatisfaction with this as she felt the offer should cover 15 weeks as well as the stress the matter had caused, and asked for £1,500. In response the landlord explained that the kitchen works had begun on 12 of January 2021 and had been fully finished, barring any snags, by 23 March 2021, a 10 week period. During this 10 week period the resident was without full use of the kitchen for roughly five weeks when work had stalled. It said that the compensation offer was in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused by not having full access to the kitchen for this period, and for the extra inconvenience of further visits after the 23 March for follow-on snagging.
8. When the resident subsequently asked to escalate the complaint to stage two, the landlord declined to do so, saying that it would not escalate as it had reviewed the compensation offer with senior staff and its decision would not change.
9. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord for the delayed works, which she said was 15 weeks, noting that she was without suitable flooring for 11 weeks, use of her cooker for nine days and that the kitchen was left in a dangerous state. She was also unhappy with the workmanship and behaviour of contractors who left dust and dirt when they left each evening and the time and trouble she had needed to spend rectifying mistakes.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The Ombudsman can consider any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord. However, the resident has said she considers that the issues affecting her property have impacted her health as she tripped on the unlevel flooring. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments here, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine on whether there was a direct link between kitchen replacement and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

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

11. The landlord’s repair policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of internal amenities, including kitchens, as well as the internal structure of the property, including walls floors and ceilings. The policy confirms that the landlord aims to maintain properties and replace components such as kitchens and bathrooms through its planned maintenance programme. It states that the landlord may not always be able to exactly match a replacement product with an existing installation; in this instance, it would find a best match. The landlord’s guidance for the order of works states that kitchen replacements may take around three weeks to complete depending on the amount of works required.
12. In this case, it is not disputed that the kitchen replacement took longer than expected. The resident’s use of the kitchen was impacted for 10 weeks between 12 January 2021, when the works started, and 23 March 2021, when they were reported as completed. There were also follow-on works required to repair snagging issues following the completion. The landlord has acknowledged that this extended the overall timeframe of the kitchen replacement.
13. The resident initially asked for works to be put on hold on 19 January 2021 as she was dissatisfied that the new kitchen was not a like-for-like match and that she had lost storage space due to smaller units being installed and larger gaps for appliances. There was also a discrepancy over the vinyl flooring that was due to replace her ceramic floor tiles. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging that its initial consultation process did not provide sufficient clarity and apologising to the resident that she was led to believe that the kitchen would be an exact match. It also took reasonable steps to learn from the complaint by confirming it would review the consultation process so that residents were aware that the replacement may not be an exact like-for-like match to avoid similar miscommunication in the future. It also explained the limitations it faced and the need for additional space around appliances and the cooker for regulation purposes, which was appropriate in order to manage the resident’s expectations.
14. Once the resident halted the works on 19 January 2021, there was a delay in addressing the issues raised until 10 February 2021 (approximately 16 working days). Whilst it is noted that an operative visited on 20 January 2021, there was a lack of progression or communication from the landlord. The resident needed to spend time and trouble pursuing updates from the landlord which was likely to have caused inconvenience and frustration.
15. The landlord then took action to ‘put things right’ by agreeing to provide different units, and ceramic tiles. It should be noted that social landlords have a limited budget and are expected to utilise the budget for the benefit of all residents. The landlord was not strictly obliged to order larger replacement units or agree to contribute towards a flooring of the resident’s choice as there was no evidence to suggest that the units or proposed flooring were unfit for purpose. However, it was reasonable for it to do so in an attempt to progress the works and provide a remedy to the communication failings identified.
16. Following the appointment on 10 February 2021, there was an understandable delay as the landlord needed to source the new units, which was somewhat outside of its control. The landlord’s records indicate that the parts arrived around 24 February 2021. It acted appropriately by acknowledging the delay in progressing works within its responses to the resident and offering compensation for the inconvenience caused over the five-week period where works had stalled, providing a breakdown and explanation as to how this had been calculated.
17. The resident has raised concern that the landlord had not acknowledged that she was without use of her kitchen for 15 weeks in her communication. Whilst it is noted that there were several further appointments to assess snagging issues, the records indicate that the kitchen was otherwise complete on 23 March 2021, ten weeks from when the works began. It is understandable that a kitchen refurbishment is likely to cause some level of disturbance and inconvenience for a resident, and the landlord would not be expected to compensate residents for any unavoidable inconvenience caused by the works. Whilst the works impacted use of the kitchen over ten weeks, the landlord would not be expected to compensate the resident for the entirety of this period.
18. It was, however, reasonable for the landlord to compensate the resident for the inconvenience caused over the five weeks that the works were stalled. The resident noted that she was without use of her cooker for nine days although it remains unclear from the evidence provided as to when this was. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was without use of other cooking facilities during this period such as a microwave, or had complete loss of the room.
19. The resident also remains dissatisfied that she was left without suitable flooring for 11 weeks. The evidence shows that the tiles were laid on 19 March 2021, which was just over nine weeks after works began. In line with the proposed order of works document provided by the landlord, floor laying would be one of the last installations completed after the installation of units and wall decoration. As such, some inconvenience was to be expected by the lack of suitable flooring. There is no evidence to suggest that work to the flooring could have been completed at a significantly earlier stage given the need to source additional larger units and the tiles of the resident’s choice. Neither is there an indication that the lack of flooring prohibited use of the kitchen.
20. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In this case, the landlord acted fairly in acknowledging the miscommunication during its initial consultation process and apologising to the resident for this. It put things right by making amendments to the initial kitchen design plan and providing flooring of the resident’s choice. It also acknowledged and apologised for the delay in the works being completed, offering compensation to the resident in view of the time she was without use of the kitchen whilst works were halted, and for the additional appointments required which extended the timeframe of the kitchen replacement.
21. The landlord’s compensation offer of £410 was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance which states that amounts between £100 – £600 are considered proportionate where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration but there was no permanent impact on the resident. The landlord has offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate, and resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

22. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should respond within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should respond within 20 days. The policy states that the landlord would not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint, but should ask for information such as which aspects of the complaint remain unresolved, further evidence to support the complaint and for clarification on the outcome the resident is seeking.
23. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. It states that a complaints policy must clearly set out the circumstances in which a matter will not be considered, and these circumstances should be fair and reasonable to residents. A landlord must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action set out within its complaint’s procedure. The code also states that the person considering the complaint at stage two, must not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage one.
24. In this case, the resident initially raised a complaint on 4 February 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 16 February 2021, which was within its published timescales. It then offered compensation to the resident on 14 May 2021, once the works had been completed. The resident initially expressed dissatisfaction with the compensation offered by the landlord on 14 and 17 May 2021. Whilst the resident did not explicitly ask for her complaint to be escalated at this stage, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have done so and provide a final response to the matter in view of her ongoing dissatisfaction, and it could then have directed her to the Ombudsman. Because this did not happen, the resident needed to continue to pursue her concerns throughout September and December 2021 to obtain a final response. The lack of a formal stage two response also lengthened the overall timeframe of the complaint and prevented the Ombudsman from investigating at an earlier stage, which was likely to have been inconvenient for the resident.
25. In addition, the landlord explained that it would not escalate the complaint because the decision regarding the compensation offer had been reviewed with senior members of staff throughout the process, and its response would not differ at stage two. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that it had asked for additional information from the resident to support her complaint, in line with its complaints policy, before deciding to refuse to escalate the complaint. This is likely to have caused frustration to the resident who remained dissatisfied with the progression of the works which had not been completed at the time of the stage one complaint response. In this case, reviewing the complaint at stage two would have allowed the landlord the opportunity to fully understand the reasons for the resident’s dissatisfaction, and explain its position in relation to the resident’s concerns regarding communication, follow-on works required to the worktops and architrave of the door, time and trouble spent cleaning the property, and the periods of time she said that she was left with dangerous electrics and without use of her cooker.
26. It is the Ombudsman’s view that only allowing one response to a complaint will be unfair if this does not allow sufficient opportunity for residents to respond to the landlord’s position. Having a further stage allows for a review at a more senior level (e.g. Director or Board), bringing a wider perspective and level of expertise to a complaint, and may ensure full consideration of both sides of a complaint. The landlord’s failure to address these concerns has prevented the Ombudsman from investigating these issues in more detail due to the lack of available evidence which is likely to inconvenience to the resident, whose concerns have not been addressed.
27. In addition, the decision to refuse to escalate the complaint was confirmed by the same staff member who handled the stage one complaint. This is unreasonable and indicates a lack of impartiality in the landlord’s complaint handling. It would have been appropriate and in line with best practice, for a different member of staff to review the complaint and make a final decision to ensure the complaint was fully considered. In view of the service failures identified, the landlord is to pay compensation in recognition of the impact of thefailings in complaint handling.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the replacement of the resident’s kitchen prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated formal complaint.

Orders

30. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident a total of £585 compensation, comprised of the £410 previously offered via the complaint  process, and £175 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. If the £410 if has already been paid, it can be deduced from this total.

Recommendations

31. It is recommended that the landlord considers reviewing its complaints policy to ensure clear and valid reasons as to why it may refuse to escalate a complaint to stage two of its internal complaints process are documented. The landlord should also ensure that any decisions regarding a refusal to escalate a complaint are made by a staff member who has not been previously involved in the complaint to ensure impartiality.
32. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident and updates its records in regard to any household vulnerabilities as the resident has noted having mobility issues in her communication.