Guinness Housing Association Limited (202205602)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205602

Guinness Housing Association Limited

10 February 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:
1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a kitchen renewal.
2. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She has resided in the property, a three-bedroom house, since 2013.
The resident contacted the landlord to request it renewed her kitchen in July 2020. Although the landlord initially advised her the kitchen would be renewed in the coming weeks, it subsequently changed its position and ultimately advised her that her kitchen was not eligible for replacement during the current financial year (2020/2021) as it believed that she had replaced her kitchen herself in 2015.
On 22 June 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord over its response to her request for a kitchen renewal. In its complaint response the landlord acknowledged that there had been miscommunication when it had originally indicated that the resident was entitled to a kitchen renewal. However, it also stated that its records showed the resident had apparently signed a waiver declining a planned kitchen renewal and this had led to it changing its position. Nonetheless, it agreed to carry out an assessment of her kitchen, awarded her compensation and partially upheld her complaint due to its miscommunication.
After the landlord subsequently carried out an assessment of the resident’s kitchen, it also carried out further enquiries after the completion of its complaints procedure and established that it had in fact renewed the kitchen itself, prior to the resident’s tenancy beginning in 2013. It therefore advised that, since it had replaced the kitchen relatively recently, the resident was not eligible for a further renewal in the near future.
The resident then referred her complaint to this Service. She advised that she had not replaced her kitchen herself and reiterated that the landlord had originally informed her that she was entitled to a kitchen renewal. She also advised that she had never signed a waiver and that the landlord had rejected her offer of a compromise, namely that she would replace her kitchen tiles and flooring if it was willing to replace her kitchen cupboards and units. She remained concerned about the condition of the kitchen and was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation, because she believed it should either provide her with a whole new kitchen or at least replace her kitchen cupboards and units.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a kitchen renewal

The landlord does not dispute that its miscommunication with the resident led her to believe that she was entitled to a kitchen renewal. It acknowledged and apologised for this in its complaint responses and offered £50 compensation for its communication failings and for any stress and inconvenience this caused. The dispute is about whether it responded reasonably to her request for a kitchen renewal, and if there is an obligation on it to renew her kitchen in the near future.
The resident asked the landlord on 30 July 2020 if it could confirm whether her kitchen would be renewed, and it responded by saying that work on her kitchen would start in the following weeks. It then amended its position, because according to its records the resident had replaced her kitchen herself in 2015. It maintained this position throughout the complaints process, before subsequently establishing that its records were incorrect and it had actually replaced the kitchen itself in 2013 prior to the start of the resident’s tenancy. Although the resident had provided photos of her kitchen to the landlord during her complaint, it had only realised after its complaints process that the style of her kitchen matched the ones it had been installing in the years prior to her tenancy starting. It then concluded that this had been the reason why it had cancelled its planned renewal of her kitchen in its renewal programme for 2020.
This was not an appropriate response by the landlord. Had it carried out a more thorough investigation on receipt of the resident’s request for a new kitchen, it may not have continued to insist she had replaced the kitchen herself. This also raises concerns over the accuracy of its record keeping. Its continued position that the resident had installed a new kitchen herself, based on inaccurate records, would have caused frustration and likely led the resident to hold the impression that her concerns were not being investigated properly.
It is further noted that, since the landlord discovered the resident had not renewed the kitchen herself, it has not offered an apology for its prior and continued insistence that she had. This was not appropriate and there is no evidence the landlord sought to “put things right” in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, by considering whether to offer any form of redress to the resident, such as an apology or award of compensation, to reflect her time and trouble in chasing the issue and the inconvenience caused by its poor communication and record keeping.
An order has therefore been made at the end of this report for the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation for its failure to appropriately respond to the resident’s request for a kitchen renewal, its poor record keeping and its failure to apologise for its continuous and incorrect insistence that she had replaced her kitchen. This is an increase on the £50 the landlord offered during its complaints procedure and is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This states that an amount of between £100 to £600 compensation is appropriate for maladministration where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and/or has made no attempt to put things right, and also in line with section 35 of the landlord’s compensation policy, where an amount of compensation under £250 is appropriate for a failure which would have had some impact on the resident.
In post-complaint correspondence with the landlord and subsequent correspondence with this Service, the resident has disputed that she signed a waiver form in 2019 refusing a new kitchen. The landlord provided the resident with a copy of the form within its stage two complaint response, which was annotated “(the resident had) put own floor down and added to kitchen and is happy with it as it is.” The resident has stated she did not sign the waiver form, has stated that the signature on the form is not hers and queried why the landlord only produced the form after the conclusion of its complaint investigation.
In response, the landlord advised that it had compared the resident’s signature with others it held on file and acknowledged they were not “exactly the same” but concluded that they “shared similarities”. It did not advise why it had not discovered the form at an earlier stage and the fact it had not again points to poor record keeping. However, while the resident’s position is acknowledged, in the absence of any evidence that calls the veracity of the form into question, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s position that the signatures were broadly similar was reasonable. It is noted that the resident’s queries over the waiver form did not form part of her original complaint, as the landlord only provided the document as evidence after the conclusion of its complaint procedure. As such, the resident may wish to raise her concerns over the legitimacy of the waiver form document as a new complaint, so as to provide the landlord with the opportunity to investigate her claim fully.
In relation to whether there is an obligation upon the landlord to renew the resident’s kitchen in the near future; according to the Decent Homes Standard, a kitchen should be renewed if either of two conditions are present:
1. The kitchen is in “poor condition”, which is defined under Annex A as, where a kitchen needs major repair or replacement of three out of six of the following:
  1. Cold water drinking supply.
  2. Hot water.
  3. Sink.
  4. Cooking provision.
  5. Cupboards.
  6. Worktop.
2. The kitchen is not reasonably modern. Reasonably modern is defined as 20 years old or less., under section 5.17 of the Decent Homes Standard.
During the landlord’s assessment of the resident’s kitchen, it only identified works being needed to one of her kitchen cupboards, and it also advised her that her kitchen was approximately eight years old after it ultimately established that it had renewed the kitchen prior to the commencement of her tenancy in 2013. It was reasonable that the landlord agreed to carry out an assessment of the resident’s kitchen and this was an example of it treating the resident fairly. Having carried out a further assessment of the kitchen’s condition, it was entitled to rely on the expertise of its surveyor and determine that the kitchen did not need to be renewed at that time. While there were failings in its overall handling of the resident’s request that her kitchen be renewed as noted above, its ultimate decision to decline to renew the kitchen did not appear to be unreasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord will issue its first stage complaints response within ten working days of the complaint being raised and will issue a stage two response within 20 working days of an escalation request. However, if more time is needed this will be explained to the resident and it will respond within a maximum of a further ten working days. The resident made her formal complaint to the landlord on 22 June 2021, and the landlord issued its first stage complaints response on 27 July 2021, 26 working days later. This was not appropriate by the landlord as its response time was outside of the timeframe set by its complaints policy. The resident had also contacted it on 15 July, 26 July, and 27 July 2021 to request an update as to when she would receive its response. No evidence has been provided by the landlord to suggest it had acknowledged there was a delay in its first stage complaints response, that it had advised her that more time was needed during any of her requests for updates.
After receiving the landlord’s stage one response, the resident escalated her complaint on 31 August 2021. The landlord responded on 25 October 2021, 40 working days later. Although it did acknowledge and apologise for the delay and offered the resident £25 compensation in recognition of this, it did not provide any explanation as to why there had been a delay.
Section 34 of the landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider the cumulative impact of a failing on the resident. Since neither the landlord’s complaint nor compensation policies list an amount of compensation for a delay in its complaints response, it is unclear how it arrived at £25 compensation as an appropriate amount for its final stage complaints response delay. Nevertheless, its compensation offer does not show an appropriate amount of consideration for the cumulative impact of both of its first stage and final stage complaints responses. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £50 compensation for the overall delays in its complaints responses, bringing the total award to £75. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where an amount of compensation between £50 to £100 is appropriate for a service failure by the landlord, where it did make an offer of compensation but that offer was not quite proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation.

Determination

Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for a kitchen renewal.
2. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £325 compensation within four weeks of the date of this report. This amount is made up of:
  1. £250 compensation for its failing in its response to the resident’s request for a kitchen renewal.
  2. £75 compensation for its failure in its complaints handling.
  3. This is in place of the £75 compensation the landlord awarded during its complaint procedure, rather than in addition to it, and should be paid to her within four weeks of the date of this report, if it has not done so already.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for incorrectly attributing the kitchen renewal to her and to clarify its position regarding any outstanding kitchen repairs.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord carry out staff training in relation to its record keeping and complaints handling policies.