Camden Council (202215089)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215089

Camden Council

31 January 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 the resident’s request to refurbish her kitchen.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling, and level of compensation offered.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant and has been in the property since 29 January 2011. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the first floor.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 6 September 2021 as she had asked for her kitchen to be replaced, and this request was refused. She had originally reported a leak under her kitchen sink which had caused damage to the lower-level cupboards. She said that the contractor who attended the property had called his office for clarification on whether the kitchen could be replaced and was told that it could not, as the kitchen had already been replaced in 2011. The resident disputed this and asked for the records to be corrected, and for her kitchen to be replaced. She informed the landlord:
1. Her kitchen was old-fashioned and the cupboards smelled “old.”
2. It was a hazard as the cupboards under the sink were out of use, so she had to store her pots and pans in the high-level cupboards.
3. The edges and corners of the cupboard doors were a hazard as she had small children in the property and had cut herself in the past.
On 23 September 2021, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response stating that its records were correct regarding the date the kitchen was installed. It confirmed it was not upholding the complaint however it would arrange for a survey on the kitchen components and ask the surveyor to submit a report with pictures to the relevant team. This was booked for the morning of 4 October 2021.
A further stage 1 complaint response was issued on 24 September 2021 under a different complaint reference number. In this response, the landlord apologised for the miscommunication and partly upheld the complaint. It confirmed that:
1. The kitchen was not upgraded during the “Better Homes” works in 2011.
2. The repairs team had determined that the kitchen was in a suitable condition, and while some minor repairs were required it was not enough to warrant a full replacement.
3. It proposed to replace a large section of the kitchen worktop and install a sideboard and legs to the smaller section of worktop above the washing machine.
4. The resident had refused these repairs as she felt she required a new kitchen.
5. The case would also be referred to the assets team to request a decision on whether the kitchen could be added to the next “Better Homes” scheme, given it was not replaced previously.
6. If the assets team did not feel it required replacing, the offer for repairs still stood.
Between September 2021 and March 2022, the resident made multiple chase requests through the online communication system, as she had not been contacted by the assets team as promised. Internal communications imply that this referral had not been made.
On 5 April 2022, the assets team assessed the kitchen and confirmed that it would replace it. The following day the landlord attended the property to take measurements and design the kitchen.
On 11 April 2022, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response stating that the complaint from 7 March 2022 regarding the request for a new kitchen was upheld. It apologised for the delay with reaching the decision and confirmed that the asset team had agreed to the renewal. It also stated that the major works team would be in contact with the resident to make the necessary arrangements. The resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 28 June 2022 as she was unhappy with the way her case had been handled.
The replacement was delayed following the discovery of asbestos, as specialist contractors were required to remove it. This was completed on 24 August 2022 and the kitchen replacement was completed on 1 October 2022.
A number of subsequent complaints were made by the resident regarding the kitchen and compensation and logged under different reference numbers. The landlord provided a stage 2 response to the resident on 20 January 2023 to encompass all the complaints. It stated:
1. When disrepair had been reported in the kitchen following a leak, it attended and offered to replace damaged work surface and cupboards. The resident declined this.
2. It attempted to complete the repairs in October and December 2021 but the resident did not confirm she would allow the repairs.
3. On 5 April 2022, a new kitchen request was raised with the “Better Homes” team.
4. The landlord reiterated its policy for replacement kitchens and explained that the reason her kitchen was not replaced during the 2011 cycle was that it was in good condition.
5. Compensation was offered at £20 per calendar month between September 2021 and April 2022, due to the delays with the Better Homes team completing its assessment. This totalled £180. No explanation was provided for the delays.
6. The landlord also recognised that its complaint response was late, citing “heavy workloads,” and an additional £50 was offered.
7. No compensation was offered for the loss of kitchen facilities as requested by the resident, as based on the evidence it had seen, the kitchen was useable. Additionally, offers of repairs had been refused by the resident.
8. The complaint was partially upheld and the total compensation offered was £230.
The resident approached the Ombudsman for support on 1 February 2023 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and the level of compensation offered. She informed this Service that she felt she should be awarded a partial rent refundfor the period of September 2021 to April 2022 as she was unable to use her kitchen fully.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to refurbish her kitchen.

The Housing Ombudsman Service recognises that budget is a key issue for social landlords in determining which properties to upgrade first, and that the focus should be on properties with reduced facilities.
From a repairs perspective, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer to make repairs to the worktops and lower cupboards following reports of water damage instead of agreeing to replace the entire kitchen. A repairs service is reactive and would implement the most cost-effective solution to resolve the immediate issue. Wider works would therefore not be within the scope of the repairs service.
The landlord confirmed that the kitchen was not upgraded in 2011 as it had first stated. The evidence that the Ombudsman has seen does not record the reason why the kitchen was not upgraded at the time, and whether this was due to error at the time or because a decision had been made that it was not needed at that point. Given the length of time that has passed since then, this investigation has therefore focused on how the landlord managed the resident’s replacement request once she raised concerns in September 2021.
When the repairs operative contacted the landlord to discuss the likelihood of a replacement kitchen, this was not considered necessary. In its complaint responses the landlord confirmed that this decision was made based on erroneous information regarding cyclical improvement works at the property from 2011. The resident was clear that the kitchen had never been upgraded and although the error was later discovered, this caused frustration for the resident as her complaint was initially not upheld based on this incorrect information.
Once it was determined that the kitchen had not been replaced, there were delays of approximately 6 months in the ‘asset team’ surveying the kitchen. When it attended, it confirmed that the kitchen did require refurbishment which supported the resident’s view.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) states “The positioning and location of amenities, fittings and equipment and the design and layout of dwellings has an effect on convenience of use. Inappropriate positioning of amenities and equipment may cause physical strain. For example, strain can result from awkward positioning of windows, difficult to operate window catches, inadequate functional space such as low headroom, inadequate space around bathroom or kitchen facilities, or inappropriate siting of facilities.
Matters relevant to the likelihood of an occurrence and to the severity of the outcome include:
1. Kitchen worktops – inappropriate positioning of a worktop and/or sink.
2. Kitchen space – inadequate functional space for the use of cooking facilities, worktops and/or sinks.
3. High level storage – inappropriate siting of a shelf or wall cupboard.”
When assessing whether a kitchen requires refurbishment, landlords should not just look at whether any repairs are required. The layout should also be considered, along with functional space. The resident’s main complaints regarding the kitchen were:
1. She felt the layout and lack of space rendered the kitchen unsuitable for cooking.
2. The wall-mounted cupboards were too high for her to reach without a stool or step ladder, meaning pots and pans had to be stored on the limited worktop space. This meant that to cook she had to clean and clear the worktops first.
3. The worktop was held up by the washing machine, and there was a pipe next to the cooker which got too hot and was a hazard. There were cupboards above the sink which were a hazard when using it.
She also felt this had an impact on her wellbeing as she was embarrassed to have guests, and after working all day felt she would always have to clear her kitchen before cooking. This meant that she often had to look for quick and easy meals or go out for food.
The photographs of the kitchen provided to this Service by the landlord indicate that it should have considered that there may have been potential hazards under the HHSRS definitions. The refurbished kitchen has an improved layout, with increased storage space and increased worktop space.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of resident’s request to upgrade her kitchen. While the original decision not to upgrade the kitchen was quickly reversed, the later delays and lack of communication amount to a service failure due to the impact on the resident. The incorrect information on its system regarding a previous “Better Homes” assessment led to misinformation being given to the resident. This error was discovered quickly and acted upon, but there was a 6-month delay before the assets team attended to assess the property with no unprompted communication to the resident during that time. The Ombudsman notes, however, that the landlord did offer to make repairs to the kitchen which would have helped to alleviate the situation during this period.

The landlord’s complaint handling, and level of compensation offered.

The landlord has a two stage complaints process, stage 1 being defined as the ‘local resolution’ stage and stage 2 being the ‘review or appeal stage’. If the resident is unhappy with the stage 1 response, they are advised to escalate within 20 working days, and a final response will be issued within 25 working days. While these timescales are not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, they are consistent with the landlord’s corporate complaints policy.
The complaint handling throughout this case was poor. From the documentation provided to the Ombudsman, it appears that multiple complaint cases were raised for the same issues. This meant that several stage 1 responses were issued for the same complaint issue, and one complaint was closed without a response as it was a duplicate. This was confusing for the resident who thought this meant her complaints were being closed without her consent, so she raised them again.
The landlord’s note keeping in relation to complaints was confusing. It informed the Service that in some cases, the dates on complaint responses may change depending on when they were last generated. This resulted in the date of the letter being inconsistent with its contents, and with notes elsewhere on its system. Some of the complaint reviews provided to the Ombudsman also had dates which did not appear to be accurate based on the contents of the review. An order will be added to the end of this report for the landlord’s complaint handling process to be reviewed.
The delay in stage 2 responses added to the resident’s frustration, as she stated to this Service that she felt she was being ignored by the landlord. Although the landlord offered compensation of £50 for the delay, the offer did not reflect the level of inconvenience experienced by the resident for the reasons highlighted below.
The complaint response dated 11 April 2022 was inadequate and confusing for the following reasons:
1. It stated that it was responding to the complaint made on 7 March 2022 but referenced its previous response on 24 September 2021.
2. It advised that the major works team would be in contact with her to arrange the replacement of her kitchen. This assessment had already taken place 5 days prior.
3. The landlord apologised for the resident “feeling the need to make a complaint” but not for its errors.
Following its stage 2 response, the landlord did not monitor the progress of the proposed resolution. This meant that the resident spent considerable time chasing the landlord. She informed the Ombudsman that she would check the complaints policies to ensure she was not chasing before the expected response dates, but felt she had to constantly make contact to avoid being forgotten about.
The landlord’s compensation policy lists several types of compensation including:
1. Distress – guideline amount of £100-£300.
2. Time and trouble – guideline amount of £100-300
3. Delay – guideline amount of £20 per month.
4. It does not refer to any guideline level of compensation for loss of facilities.
The offer of compensation for the delay in the completion of the “Better Homes” survey was appropriate and in line with its policy. An order will be made at the end of this report for this to be paid to the resident, as she has confirmed to this Service that she rejected the offer at the time.
While the kitchen may have been a poor layout with minimal workspace, the fundamental elements such as the sink, fridge and cooking facilities were present and working. Although it was inconvenient for the resident, it was possible to use the full workspace by clearing cooking equipment and therefore there was no loss of facilities.
The resident has stated to this Service that she would like to receive compensation for loss of facilities for the period of September 2021 to April 2022. The Ombudsman does not discount the resident’s view that it was not fit for her needs, however based on the evidence provided, the landlord had taken appropriate steps to repair any issues she reported and so we find that compensation of this nature would not be warranted.
Taking into consideration the miscommunication and delays throughout the complaints process, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the handling of the resident’s complaint. An order will be made at the end of this report for the complaints handling process to be reviewed, and for staff to be given refresher training. For the reasons above, a further order will be made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation in recognition of the impact of these failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to refurbish her kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, and level of compensation offered.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay £580 compensation to the resident consisting as follows:
  1. £330 for the handling of the request for a replacement kitchen consisting of £180 for the delay in the “Better Homes” assessment being completed, as previously offered, and £150 for the resident’s time and trouble.
  2. £250 for the further distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of the complaint which includes the £50 already offered.
Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord must review its complaint handling process. The review should be completed by a senior manager and include:
1. Assessing how complaints are logged on internal systems and ensuring the process is user friendly.
2. Defining when a new complaint needs to be raised, particularly if another complaint is ongoing. This will prevent any confusion and avoid multiple complaints being raised for the same issue.
3. Implementing a contact strategy to ensure residents are updated if there are delays and a response is not possible during the required timescales. This will ensure that residents are kept up to date with the progress of their complaint and are not required to chase the landlord for a response.
4. Providing refresher training to staff once the review is complete and the process has been updated. This will ensure all customer facing staff are fully aware of the updated process and where to find support if they need it.
5. A copy of the review and any proposed changes to the process should be provided to the Ombudsman within 10 weeks of this report.
The landlord should confirm compliance, with evidence, with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 and 10 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should assess how it stores information regarding cyclical improvement works and ensure there are no future miscommunications.
2. The landlord should review the process for requesting assessments from its assets team to ensure a timely response.
The landlord should confirm its intentions regarding the above recommendations to the Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.