Habinteg Housing Association Limited (202112314)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112314

Habinteg Housing Association Limited

14 April 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

The complaint concerns how the landlord handled the resident’s reports about the condition of the bathroom and kitchen in the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a maisonette.
The landlord categorises its repairs as “Emergency” (respond within 24 hours), “Urgent” (complete within five working days) and “Routine” (complete within 20 working days).
The landlord’s repairs policy provides examples of how it categorises repair types when they are reported. The policy states that it will consider a total loss of electric power, severe flooding or burst pipes, and a total loss of heating in severe weather as emergency repairs. The policy goes on to state that it will consider no hot water, loss of heating and minor leaks or drips from pipes as urgent repairs.

Summary of events

An inspection of the property’s wetroom and kitchen was arranged by the landlord on 27 April 2021. The landlord’s notes of the visit stated that the surveyor recommended work to the wetroom to remove all handrails, make good cracking around the boxing, regrout the tiles, remove the shower chair and make good the tiles. The notes go on to state that the surveyor recommended work to the kitchen to renew the sink base unit, sink, worktops, mixer taps, and to overhaul the window.
The resident called the landlord about the work on 4 May 2021. The landlord’s notes of the call state that it was informed by the resident that at the time of the inspection he had told the surveyor that he did not want a bath to be put into the wetroom, but had now changed his mind. The resident also expressed his unhappiness that the landlord was only considering repairs to the kitchen and not a full replacement as the property has had the same kitchen for over 30 years.
The landlord called the resident on 6 May 2021 to inform him that the kitchen was not currently on its replacement list, but that it would be reassessed on the next stock condition survey.
The landlord’s repair logs state that the work to the kitchen was completed on 19 May 2021, but work to the wetroom remained outstanding as additional retiling work was required.
On 7 July 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord raising a formal complaint. He described the elements of the complaint as:
1. He found the surveyor who undertook the inspection on 27 April 2021 to be insensitive and rude during discussions about whether a bathtub would be installed into the wetroom.
2. He had lived in the property since 1993 and the kitchen had not been replaced during that time. When he enquired whether the property was eligible for a new kitchen and bathroom, the surveyor did not know.
3. He suffered an accident on 19 May 2021 as a result of water from the wetroom that had leaked into the hallway.
The landlord sent a stage one complaint response on 13 July 2021. The landlord informed the resident that:
1. The inspection held on 27 April 2021 did not find any evidence of water discharge into the hallway. It would arrange a further inspection with the resident to ensure that water did not breach the shower screen or shower curtain in the wetroom.
2. A new shower was installed in the property in 2021 and it was satisfied that the property was equipped with adequate washing facilities and met the Decent Homes Standard.
3. The kitchen in the property was installed in 2008 and had an expected lifespan of 25 years. The surveyor’s inspection on 27 April 2021 found that once the recommended work to the kitchen had been completed, it would be of an acceptable standard.
4. It was sorry to hear of the injuries the resident had suffered as a result of the accident that occurred on 19 May 2021 and if the resident wished to pursue a claim, it would instruct its insurer to contact him.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 July 2021 and explained what information its insurer would require in order to progress a claim.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 September 2021 and requested an escalation of the complaint on the grounds that he had received no contact from the landlord since he submitted his complaint on 7 July 2021.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request on 17 September 2021. It wrote again on 29 September 2021 and informed the resident that it had declined his request to escalate the complaint on the grounds that its complaints policy states that a complainant has four weeks from receipt of the stage one response to request an escalation. It said the resident did not make a request until three months had passed since the stage one response was sent.
The resident replied on 29 September 2021 and informed the landlord that he had not received a copy of the stage one response. The landlord resent the response on 30 September 2021. The resident acknowledged receipt of the response and confirmed that he had not received it when it was originally sent.
On 8 October 2021 the landlord sent a follow-up to its complaint response following a second inspection of the property undertaken on 22 September 2021. It informed the resident that:
1. The resident had demonstrated that there was damage to the shower door which had caused water to leak into the hallway. The resident informed the landlord that the issue had started “a couple of weeks ago” but the landlord could find no record of the resident reporting the matter to the landlord.
2. It had provided the resident with its contact details and asked him to report any further issues to allow it to complete repairs in a timely manner.
3. The wetroom had been installed by the local authority in 2012 and was not eligible for upgrade yet as it was in a good state of repair and within its lifespan. It offered two solutions to the issue with leakage:
  1. To replace the broken shower door, or;
  2. To install a bath against the wall where the electric shower was located and to replace the tiles on the two walls in that location with aqua boards.
4. Once the resident had a made a decision, the landlord would then arrange for its contractor to complete the work.
5. If the resident was not happy with the resolution, he could request an escalation of the complaint within four weeks of receiving the response, or alternatively he could take his complaint to this Service to consider.
Following this, the resident confirmed to the landlord that he would like a bath installed. It is understood that the landlord agreed to change the wetroom to a bathroom and an order for these works was raised on 10 February 2022.

Assessment and findings

In accordance with section 2(3) of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is obliged to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. It was therefore appropriate for it to arrange an inspection by a suitably qualified surveyor when the resident informed it of his concerns as to the condition of the kitchen and bathroom.
Following the inspection, the surveyor recommended work to both the kitchen and bathroom, which was raised by the landlord in line with its repair policy. The resident disputed that the level of work was adequate and requested a new kitchen and bathroom to be installed. This was declined by the landlord. In its complaint responses, the landlord noted that the kitchen was last replaced in 2008, and the wetroom was installed in 2012, and it was satisfied that the property met the Decent Homes Standard and had adequate facilities. While it is noted that the resident has disputed that the kitchen was replaced, the landlord has provided repair records and photographs that show the kitchen was replaced in 2008.
The Decent Homes Standard is a technical standard aimed to provide a minimum standard of housing conditions for all those who are housed in the social housing sector. The criteria the property must meet for the standard are, in part, as follows:
1. It must meet the current statutory minimum standard for housing
2. It must be in a reasonable state of repair
3. It must have reasonably modern facilities and services; dwellings which fail to meet these criteria are those which lack three or more of the following:
  1. A reasonably modern kitchen (20 years old or less).
  2. A kitchen with adequate space and layout.
  3. A reasonably modern bathroom (30 years old or less).
  4. An appropriately located bathroom and WC.
There is no evidence to suggest the property does not meet the decent homes standard and accordingly, there is no evidence of service failure in how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the kitchen and bathroom. It was reasonable for the landlord to follow the conclusions of its appropriately qualified surveyor and raise work orders to complete the recommended work within its timescales for routine repairs. Social landlords have limited resources and they are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. In view of this, landlords are entitled to opt to repair damaged items rather than consider a compete kitchen or bathroom renewal in the first instance.
It is noted that the resident says he reported the problem with water leaking from the shower during the first surveyor inspection and that the landlord failed to follow up on this. While the resident’s comments are noted, it is not possible to establish what was discussed during the inspection due to a lack of evidence. Once the resident brought the matter to the landlord’s attention as part of his formal complaint, the landlord responded appropriately by confirming that it would arrange a further surveyor inspection. The landlord has provided a record dated 6 September 2021 stating that the surveyor had attempted to make an appointment with the resident by telephone on three occasions but there had been no answer, and that he had attended unannounced on 24 August 2021 when on site, but was unable to gain access. Therefore, the landlord has been able to evidence that it made reasonable attempts to arrange the inspection at this time.
The inspection subsequently took place during September 2021 which confirmed that there was a problem with water leaking from the shower. Following the inspection, the resident was offered two solutions to the issue: to either install a bath or replace the shower door which was the source of the leak. These were reasonable solutions as they attempted to address the issue with the leak and therefore ensure the landlord met its repairing obligations.
The available evidence indicates that it has taken several months for the bath installation works to be arranged after the landlord confirmed the solutions it could offer the resident in this regard. It is therefore recommended that the landlord considers if there have been any service failures in its handling of this matter since this time and if so, takes steps to offer redress to the resident. It should be noted that the Ombudsman is unable to consider this matter until it has been taken through the landlord’s complaints procedure, and therefore if the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response then he should raise a complaint with the landlord in the first instance.
The resident has reported that he has suffered injuries as a result of the leak from the shower. The landlord followed the correct process in advising the resident to contact its liability insurer if he considered that it was liable for the leak and any damages caused by the accident he suffered. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of the landlord’s insurer and if the resident remains dissatisfied with the outcome of the insurance claim, then he would need to seek legal advice.
It is also noted that the resident has raised concerns over the landlord’s handling of his complaint; specifically that he did not receive the stage one response when the landlord says this was initially sent. While the resident’s concerns are noted, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine that this was due to any service failure by the landlord. The landlord initially declined to escalate the complaint on the basis that it was out of time, but given that the resident said that he never received the stage one response, it was appropriate that the landlord agreed to review the complaint and provide a further response in October 2021.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it handled the resident’s reports about the condition of the bathroom and kitchen in the property.

Reasons

The landlord responded appropriately when informed of the issues in the kitchen and bathroom by arranging a surveyor inspection, and raised work orders to resolve the issues identified within published timescales. It was reasonable for the landlord to decline the resident’s request for a full renewal of the bathroom and kitchen based on the recommendations made by its surveyor.

Recommendation

It is recommended that within the next four weeks the landlord considers if there have been any service failures in its handling of the bathroom replacement works since it issued its complaint response on 8 October 2021, and if so, offers compensation to the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.