Estuary Housing Association Limited (202216223)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216223

Estuary Housing Association Limited

1 December 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 is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The refurbishment of the kitchen.
2. The resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractors.
The Ombudsman has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds a 5-year fixed term tenancy with the landlord. The resident has mental health vulnerabilities, which the landlord is aware of.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 20 April 2022. She said that the kitchen units were old and falling apart and the kitchen tiles were cracked. A surveyor due to attend, had rescheduled an appointment, however she could not attend this as she cared for her mother full-time.
On 22 April 2022, the landlord responded to the resident. It said that the resident was due to have a kitchen upgrade under its planned works programme, however, due to COVID-19, a shortage of building materials and budget constraints, this had been delayed. The landlord had asked its contractor to carry out a full kitchen refurbishment instead. The contractors would look at components of the kitchen to replace like for like, so it would not be the same as a kitchen replacement but would provide the resident use of a functioning kitchen. Its contractors would contact the resident to get the kitchen refurbishment booked in.
The contractor missed an appointmentto inspect the kitchen on 4 May 2022. It apologised to the resident for this and said it would rebook the appointment the following day. The resident said she did not want the inspection to take place. She said she had already sent photographs of the kitchen. The contractor said that it would need to carry out an inspection as photos alone were not sufficient.
On 10 May 2022, the contractor did not attend an appointment within the timeframe the resident had been given. The resident asked that the appointment be rebooked as she cared for her mother and could not wait for the contractor to arrive. The resident said that the contractors had failed to attend 3 appointments and asked that this be escalated as a complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 20 May 2022. It apologised for the 3 missed appointments and said the resident would receive 3 shopping vouchers in compensation. It said the kitchen works would take 2 contractors all day to complete.
The resident complained to both the landlord and the contractors in July 2022. She said she was dissatisfied with the contractors’ behaviour and handling of the works. She said the contractors had left early one day, and left appliances disconnected. She was unhappy the works could not be completed in a day as the landlord had said they would be in its stage 1 complaint response.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 2 September 2022. She told the landlord that:
1. Its contractors had missed several appointments. She asked that the contractors call her if they were going to be late or were not going to attend.
2. She wanted compensation for the weekend she had been left without a cooker.
3. The work completed was not up to standard.
4. The operatives working at the property had made sexist comments towards her.
5. A supervisor had attended the property without her being informed.
6. She had been discriminated against due to her mental health and because she lived in social housing.
7. The landlord had failed to provide her with a copy of the surveyor’s report carried out on her property.
8. She said that the following repairs were outstanding:
  1. The kitchen tiles had sunk and the tiling around the sink needed to be redone.
  2. The sink needed replacing and sealant needed to be applied.
  3. The kitchen units needed to be attached correctly.
  4. The floor needed to be screeded and vinyl applied.
  5. The ceiling needed to be fixed and replastered.
  6. The extractor fan needed to be fitted.
  7. The wall heater needed to be replaced as it was damaged and unsafe.
  8. The wall units were not the correct size and were not fit for purpose.
  9. The kitchen light needed to be replaced.
On 7 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to request that it correspond with her via email in future as this could be traced and no information could be lost or incorrectly recorded. The landlord wrote to the resident the same day. It said its review into her case was taking longer than expected and it would respond by 24 October 2022. On 13 October 2022, the landlord offered the resident a single point of contact. On 27 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord as she had not received a response to her complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 27 October 2022. It apologised that works to the kitchen were still outstanding and for the delay in responding to her stage 2 complaint. It said:
1. Its contractor had said most of the work had now been completed.
2. The resident had ended a call when it had tried to explain what steps it would take.
3. It had arranged for a supervisor to inspect the quality of the work and would contact the resident by 31 October 2022 to book an appointment to do so.
4. It understood that the resident wanted to wait until all the works to the kitchen were completed before the floor was laid. However, it wanted to get the floor contractor booked in to avoid further delays.
5. As an interim gesture it was sending £20 in shopping vouchers. As there was still work to do, its internal complaints procedure was not yet complete.
The landlord’s records state that between 28 October 2022 and 27 January 2023, the resident refused to arrange an appointment to allow its contractors to post inspect the kitchen.
On 15 March 2023, the resident complained to the Ombudsman. She said there was still work outstanding and the work that had been completed had not been carried out to an acceptable standard.
The landlord contacted the resident on 16 May 2023. It said that there had been an error in raising the works to replace the floor. It said it had raised these works again. The resident confirmed to the landlord that its contractors were booked to replace the floor on 8 and 9 June 2023.
The landlord’s repair logs state that as the kitchen light was working, it would not replace the broken light housing. The resident has told the Service that the kitchen light was damaged when the contractors had carried out the work to the kitchen the previous year.
The landlord’s records dated 13 July 2023, state that the resident requested that the fitting of the kitchen extractor fan be cancelled and that she would raise this at a later date. The resident has told the Service that she has since asked the landlord to reopen this repair, but that it has not installed an extractor fan, only a ventilation cover over a redundant circuit.

Assessment

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that residents must allow the landlord access at reasonable times subject to reasonable notice to inspect the condition of the premises. The tenancy agreement also states that the resident should allow access for the landlord to carry out any repairs or other works.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that where its contractors missed or were late for appointments it will issue the resident with a £10 shopping voucher for each missed appointment. The policy states its surveyors may arrange visits to look at works in progress and to check the quality of any works that have been carried out.
The landlord’s code of conduct states that it applies to all employees, working for, or on behalf of, the landlord. It states that its employees must always treat residents fairly, with courtesy and respect. The policy states that employees’ actions, behaviour, and demeanour while at work should be well mannered and considerate, that unprofessional behaviour towards residents is not acceptable in any circumstances, and that employees should not use language which residents may find offensive.
The landlord’s complaint process has two stages. At stage 1, it states it will issue a response within 10 working days. At stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days. If an extension of time is needed at either stage, the landlord will write to the resident to inform them. The policy states that any extension will not exceed a further 10 working days.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, published on our website, states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.

The refurbishment of the kitchen

The landlord agreed that the resident’s kitchen was due for renewal. It acted reasonably in agreeing to refurbish the resident’s kitchen, given that its planned renewal programme was delayed by over a year, due to COVID-19, a shortage of building materials and budget constraints.
The landlord acted appropriately in apologising for the missed appointments. These missed appointments would have been inconvenient for the resident and were a failing by the landlord. It acted in-line with its repairs policy, set out above, in issuing 3 £10 shopping vouchers for the times its staff and contractors were late or missed appointments.
The landlord’s contractors acted appropriately in advising the resident that they would need to carry-out an inspection prior to carrying out the works to the kitchen. The resident told the contractors this was not necessary as she had sent photos. Although the photos provided by the resident may have given an indication of the condition of the kitchen, without an inspection, the contractors would not have been able to fully assess the extent of the work needed, nor how long it would take.
It will have been frustrating for the resident that the contractors called her on one of the days they attended, to say that they had to leave sooner than expected. The Service has not seen evidence as to why the contractors left early. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate what the reasons for this were, particularly as it had told the resident that the works would be completed in one day and the resident had to plan around her caring responsibilities.
The landlord’s records indicate that the contractor took reasonable steps to complete the works as it offered the resident a further appointment for the following week. However, the resident raised concerns at the end of July 2022, shortly after the follow up appointment, that the works remained incomplete. There is no evidence to show that the landlord took any further action to progress this until it confirmed in its stage 2 response of 27 October 2022, that it would inspect the works. This was a significant delay and a failing.
The resident said the contractors had told her that they had not reconnected her appliances because it would be dangerous to do so. The contractors’ records state that its operatives informed the resident that they would not be able to move the appliances without her signing a waiver and as she was not at the property at the time, they could not move the appliances and reconnect them. Where there is a disputed version of events, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine what did or did not happen. However, as the resident had raised the issue of being left without cooking facilities in her stage 2 complaint, the landlord should have addressed this issue in its stage 2 response, to demonstrate that it had investigated her concerns and what steps it would take to address this aspect of her complaint. As it did not do so this was a further failing.
It is understandable that the resident wanted the rest of the kitchen works to be completed before the landlord replaced the floor. However, the landlord is not obliged to complete repairs in anyparticular order andis entitled to plan works according to the availability of materials and of its contractors. The landlord’s records show that the resident told it that she would not allow access for the floor to be replaced on several occasions. Its records also show that its contractors tried to post-inspect the kitchen as the resident had said that the work had not been completed to a good standard, however, she did not give them access to do so. Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, she was obliged to allow the landlord access to carry-out works and inspections in the property. TheService is not questioning the resident’s decision not to allow access; however, the landlord cannot be held responsible for any delays due to lack of access.
The landlord’s records show that the resident agreed on 27 January 2023, for the work to the floor to be carried out. However, this was not completed until the 8 and 9 June 2023 as the landlord had raised the wrong job. This was a significant failing and will have caused the resident frustration as well as time, trouble, and inconvenience.
The resident has told the Service that both the kitchen light and the kitchen extractor have not yet been repaired. The resident told the landlord that the kitchen light was broken by contractors during the work to refurbish the kitchen. It is the landlord’s responsibility to make good any damage caused by its contractors during works. The landlord is ordered to repair the light housing or if this cannot be repaired, to replace this. The landlord’s records show that there should have been an extractor fan installed in the kitchen. The landlord is ordered to install an extractor fan in the kitchen and to make good the decoration round the fan.
It is not clear from the evidence provided whether the issues the resident raised in her stage 2 complaint have been resolved. The landlord should arrange an appointment with the resident to post-inspect the kitchen refurbishment. It should check that the issues she raised in her stage 2 complaint have been completed to a good standard and put right any identified issues. It should ensure that:
1. the replacement of the kitchen sink, the tiling and sealant round the sink, are to standard.
2. the kitchen units are the correct size and are properly attached,
3. the replastering of the kitchen ceiling has been carried out and,
4. the wall heater has been replaced.
As outlined above, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen works which have led to delays in the works being fully completed. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged there had been communication failures and offered the resident £20 in vouchers. However, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, published on our website, states that where maladministration has been identified and issues have not been fully put right, £100-£600 compensation should be offered. The landlord should offer the resident £200 compensation for its failures in its handling of the repairs.

The landlord’s handling of its contractors’ conduct

The resident raised a concern that a supervisor had attended the property without the landlord informing her of this in advance and she said this was a safeguarding issue. The Service cannot comment on whether the supervisor’s attendance presented a safeguarding risk as this would be a matter for the police to investigate. The landlord’s repairs policy, set out above, states that its surveyors may arrange visits to look at works in progress and to check the quality of any works that have been carried out. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident that a surveyor or supervisor was due to visit.
The resident complained that the contractors had been rude to her and had made sexist comments. She also said that they had discriminated against her due to her mental health and because she was a social housing tenant. The landlord has an obligation to protect the confidentiality of its contractors’ personal details. Therefore, the landlord would not be expected to tell the resident specific details regarding what, if any, disciplinary action was taken relating to the contractors following the conclusion of its investigation into the contractors’ conduct. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to investigate employment matters and therefore we would not assess or comment on any disciplinary action which may have been taken. Rather, our investigation has focused on the actions taken by the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns about the contractors’ conduct and put right any errors for the resident.
The resident raised the contractors’ conduct and alleged discrimination against her, in her stage 2 complaint. She also reported this on at least one occasion to the contracting company directly. However, the landlord did not address her concerns about the conduct of its contractors nor her allegation of discrimination in its stage 2 complaint response. This was a failing. As set out above, the landlord’s code of conduct states that anyone working on its behalf should always treat residents with respect and courtesy and should not use language which residents may find offensive.
The Service cannot make a legally binding decision on whether the resident was discriminated against. However, the landlord should have investigated the resident’s complaint about its contractor’s conduct, ensuring that it spoke to both the resident and the contractors concerned to try and establish what happened and consider any evidence. Once it had concluded its investigation, it should have looked at what action it could take, such as issuing an apology and/or arranging for different operatives to complete the works if appropriate. As there is no evidence the landlordinvestigatedthe contractors’ conduct, this is likely to have made the resident feel that it was not taking her concerns seriously. It is understandable that the resident may have been reluctant for the landlord’s contractors to attend her home.
As noted above, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, states that where maladministration has been identified which adversely affected the resident £100-£600 compensation should be considered. The landlord should offer the resident £150 for its failure to investigate the contractors’ conduct.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, set out above, states that landlords must address all points raised in complaints. In her stage 2 complaint, the resident asked for a copy of the surveyor’s report carried out on her property. If there were reasons why it was unable to provide a copy of this report, the landlord would be expected to explain the reasons for this. The resident also raised the issue of no cooking facilities and supervisors attending unannounced and neither of these issues were addressed in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. The landlord should have responded to these aspects of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord phoned the resident on 27 October 2022, in relation to her stage 2 complaint. This can be helpful as it gives the landlord an opportunity to make sure it has fully understood the complaint, the outcome the resident is seeking, and to check which issues remain outstanding. However, on 7 October 2022, the resident specifically asked the landlord to correspond via email in future and said that she did not want a phone call. Given that the resident had made this request, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to write to her if it needed any clarification, rather than phoning her.
The resident complained to the contractor on 18 July 2022 and to the landlord on 26 July 2022. The landlord did not formally respond to either of these complaints. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 2 September 2022. It is acknowledged that the landlord contacted the resident on 7 October 2022, to advise her it needed more time and that it would respond by 24 October 2022. However, it did not issue it stage 2 complaint response until 27 October 2022. The landlord’s complaint handling policy, set out above, states it will respond to stage 2 complaints in 20 working days. The landlord’s failure to respond to the concerns the resident raised in July 2022 and the delay in responding to her stage 2 complaint, were unreasonable and will have caused the resident time, trouble, and inconvenience as she was left waiting for a response to her complaints for longer than she should have been.
Where maladministration has been identified, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that £100-£600 compensation should be considered. The landlord is ordered to offer the resident £150 compensation for its maladministration in its handling of her complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the refurbishment of the resident’s kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 5 weeks of the date of this report, ensuring it provides the Service with evidence of compliance by the same date:
1. Repair or replace the housing over the kitchen light.
2. Install an extractor fan in the kitchen and make good the areas around the fan.
3. Post-inspect the kitchen to ensure that:
  1. the replacement of the sink, the tiling and sealant round the sink, are to standard.
  2. the kitchen units are the correct size and are properly attached,
  3. the replastering of the kitchen ceiling has been carried out and,
  4. the wall heater has been replaced.
4. Pay the resident £200 for its failures in its handling of the kitchen refurbishment.
5. Pay the resident £150 for its failures in its handling of her concerns about the conduct of its contractors.
6. Pay the resident £150 for its failures in the handling of the associated complaint.
7. Carry out a case review to set out points of learning in relation to its handling of the refurbishment of the kitchen, the conduct of its contractors and its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Carry-out staff training in complaint handling to ensure that it addresses all points raised in residents’ complaints.
2. Pay the resident the £50 in shopping vouchers it offered her (£30 in its stage 1 complaint response and £20 in its stage 2 complaint response) if it has not done so already.