Habinteg Housing Association Limited (202206829)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206829

Habinteg Housing Association Limited

20 September 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 installation of the resident’s kitchen.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, who is a housing association. The resident has lived at the property since 10 May 2019. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
A works order was raised by the landlord on 3 December 2019 to replace the resident’s kitchen. Contractor A was due to complete the works on behalf of the landlord. The works were scheduled to take place in April 2020. The Coronavirus pandemic meant that the works were delayed until government guidance allowed the work to be completed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 June 2020 to ask when the works would recommence. The resident noted she had purchased an integrated oven and hob for the kitchen and had discussed this with contractor A. The landlord responded that it did not have a date for the works to recommence but it would contact the resident when it did.
The resident contacted the landlord again on several occasions throughout 2020 and 2021 to ask when the kitchen installation would take place. The landlord advised it would write to the resident at the end of June 2021 to confirm when the work would take place. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 July 2021 to complain that she had not had any further correspondence and expressed frustration with the delay and lack of update.
The resident further complained on 6 September 2021. The resident noted that she felt ignored by the landlord and that the lack of update was “unacceptable.” The landlord responded the following day and explained it had contacted contractor A and it would install the kitchen within the current financial year. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 February 2022 to advise that she had not received any contact from contractor A.
This Service contacted the landlord on 11 July 2022 and 5 August 2022 to instruct the landlord to respond to the resident’s stage one complaint because no response had been provided.
On 5 August 2022, contractor B took over the programme of works. Contractor B visited the resident on or around 11 August 2022 to discuss the work that would be done. The resident asked the landlord if it would be carrying out works relating to lighting, repainting, and tiling.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 9 August 2022. It apologised for the delay in completing the kitchen works and advised it had asked an alternative contractor to complete the works. It offered the resident £100 compensation.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 September 2022 to express further frustration that she had not received an update from the landlord. The resident again asked the landlord to confirm if the lighting, repainting, and tiling works would take place as this had previously been agreed with contractor A in 2019. The resident requested her complaint be escalated.
The landlord responded to the resident on 16 September and noted that the contractor would only be fitting the kitchen as per their scope of works and would not do any additional works. This included fitting the resident’s own appliances or flooring. The landlord noted that if the resident wished to make any changes to the kitchen after the installation, she would need to request this and seek permission as per the tenancy agreement. On 30 September 2022, the landlord asked the resident to confirm that she accepted its position and wished to continue so that the installation could begin.
On 4 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to explain that contractor B had informed her that the works had been cancelled. The landlord reassured the resident this was not the case. The landlord stated that the resident had not confirmed she was happy to continue by the close of the business day, so it had told contractor B to wait.
This Service contacted the landlord on 7 October 2022 to request that the resident’s complaint be escalated to stage 2.
The kitchen was installed in October 2022. The resident contacted the landlord to explain she was unhappy with some aspects and that the works done in her kitchen did not match those done in neighbouring properties. Contractor B and the landlord attended on several occasions but the resident remained unhappy and requested that the landlord and contractor B do not attend again. The resident has noted issues with:
1. The quality of the paintwork.
2. The quality of the tiling and silicone.
3. The washing machine was plumbed in incorrectly.
4. The dishwasher was damaged.
5. The ‘dining’ portion of the kitchen had not been completed when this had been done in neighbouring properties.
6. The alignment of the cupboards.
7. Plug sockets were not replaced.
The landlord held a hearing on 1 November 2022 in response to the resident’s stage 2 request, the hearing was attended by the resident. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 November 2022. It apologised for the delay and accepted its communications had been poor. It explained that it had changed the specification of its kitchen renewals programme after 2019 which was why the works completed did not match those of neighbouring properties. It apologised that this was not explained to the resident and that it would arrange for further works to take place in the resident’s dining room. The resident remained unhappy and the matter was referred to this Service.

Assessment and findings

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

There was a total of 34 months from the initial works order being raised to the kitchen being fitted. The first coronavirus national lockdown started in March 2020 which meant the works could not take place, this was outside of the landlord’s control. It is understandable that there would be some delay to repairs following the lifting of government restrictions due to the backlog of works landlords had at the time. However, restrictions were lifted on 19 July 2021 and there was a delay of 15 months until the work took place. This delay was inappropriate and caused inconvenience to the resident who did not know when the work would take place.
The resident contacted the landlord on at least 12 occasions throughout 2020, 2021, and 2022 to ask when the works would take place. When the landlord did respond, it was vague in its response and did not provide the resident with any reassurances of when the work would take place. It failed to manage the resident’s expectations or provide meaningful updates which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord noted that the delay was, in part, due to contractor A. When contacted by the resident for an update, the landlord did follow up with contractor A but often received no response. Whilst contractor A’s failure to act was outside of the control of the landlord, the landlord failed to appropriately manage contractor A or have sufficient oversight to ensure the work was completed on time or provide updates to the resident on the actions it was taking. This was a failure by the landlord.
The resident had noted to the landlord on 12 June 2020 that she had purchased her own hob and oven to be fitted and that she had discussed this with contractor A. There does not appear to be any record of this information being passed to the landlord by contractor A before the resident made this purchase. Whilst this Service does not doubt the resident’s assertion that contractor A agreed to her purchasing her own appliances to be fitted, there is no record of this taking place in order for an assessment to take place.
The landlord informed the resident on 16 September 2022 that contractor B would only be installing the kitchen to the agreed specification and would not be installing any additional or alternative items the resident had purchased. While the landlord would not be expected to complete works outside of the agreed specification, it took over 2 years to confirm to the resident that this was the case. This was inappropriate and caused distress and disappointment to the resident.
The resident expressed frustration that contractor B had only completed works in the kitchen and not in the ‘dining’ portion of the same room. The resident noted that the dining area had been redecorated in neighbouring properties in 2019 under the same programme of works. In its complaint response, the landlord advised it had changed the specification of the programme of works before the resident’s kitchen had been fitted, it apologised and confirmed it would complete works in the dining area as well. The landlord has not provided evidence that this work has taken place, an order has been made below to reflect this.
Once the kitchen was fitted, the resident reported that she was unhappy with the quality of the works. Records show that the landlord and Contractor B attended on several occasions to do remedial works or to inspect.
The landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake, therefore its decision to do so was appropriate.
It is noted that the resident is reluctant to allow the landlord access to inspect the kitchen. However, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the kitchen, and the resident has an obligation under her tenancy agreement to allow access for the landlord to complete repairs. The failings in the landlord’s handling of the issue have evidently lead to a breakdown in trust, but if it is not allowed access to complete repairs it will impact on its ability to resolve matters. As such, we have made an order below for the landlord to offer to further inspect and agree an action plan with the resident for the outstanding works to the kitchen.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord offered £100 compensation for the delay in installing the kitchen. It offered a further £100 in its stage 2 response. The landlord has shown some learning from the failures noted. It has accepted that the delays were inappropriate and notes it has made changes to the way it handles contact with residents. It has also recruited more staff and no longer works with contractor A.
While the Ombudsman recognises the landlord’s attempts to resolve the matter, it considers that the compensation offered is not sufficient for the following reasons:
1. The lack of communication with the resident about when the kitchen would be replaced.
2. The inconvenience and distress caused to the resident as a result of needing to chase the landlord for updates.
3. Failure to appropriately manage its contractors.
4. Failure to make it clear to the resident that the kitchen would only be installed to the specification at the earliest opportunity.
The Ombudsman awards £400 compensation to redress the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident as a result of the failures identified.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process lacked customer focus,, failed to recognise the complaint, and took too long. The landlord did not communicate well with the resident about the complaint.
The landlord’s complaint policy includes a ‘stage 0’ where it aims to resolve initial complaints without the need for a formal response. Stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Where this timeframe is not possible, the landlord will explain the reasons to the resident.
When a resident requests a stage 2 escalation, the landlord will decide whether to escalate the complaint by considering:
1. Why the resident remains dissatisfied.
2. Whether it considers the reasons for escalation to be valid.
3. If not allowing the escalation would be viewed as inhibiting fair accessibility.
If the landlord considers that escalating the complaint to stage 2 would be inappropriate, it will explain its rationale to the resident.
The Code states that it is not appropriate to have extra named steps in a complaint handling policy, for example a ‘stage 0’, because it causes confusion for the resident. The Code states that if all or part of a complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, the landlord must progress it to stage 2. Stage 2 complaints must be acknowledged within 5 workings days and responded to within 20 working days.
The Code defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents.’ The word ‘complaint’ does not have to be used. The resident first expressed her frustration with the lack of updates on 25 July 2021. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 September 2021 to request a response to her complaint. The landlord provided an update on its timeframe but did not recognise or acknowledge the resident’s complaint. This was inappropriate and a failure of service.
This Service contacted the landlord on 11 July 2022 to ask it to respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord did contact the resident to discuss the matter but did not acknowledge the complaint. This Service contacted the landlord again on 5 August 2022 and a complaint response was provided on 9 August 2022. This is over a year from the resident’s first complaint and was a failure by the landlord.
The resident requested that her complaint be escalated on 12 September 2022 but this was not acknowledged. On 7 October 2022, this Service contacted the landlord to request it escalate the resident’s complaint. The landlord responded by asking this Service to reconsider its request as the landlord considered that the additional delay was caused by the resident wanting to install her own appliances. The stage 2 complaint was raised on 17 October 2022.
The landlord held a hearing for the stage 2 complaint on 1 November 2022 which was attended by the resident. The complaint response was provided on 3 November 2022.
The landlord failed to handle the resident’s stage 2 escalation request in line with the Code. It did not acknowledge the request and tried to justify its failure to escalate to this Service by referring back to its policy. This was an inappropriate response.
The landlord’s complaint handling took too long and caused inconvenience to the resident who had to request a response on several occasions and ask this Service to intervene. The resident was evidently distressed by the landlord’s failure to response. The landlord failed to demonstrate it was taking the resident’s complaint seriously or provide reassurance that it would respond.
In its complaint responses, the landlord did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures and missed the opportunity to put things right.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and considers that £250 is an appropriate sum to acknowledge and redress the complaint handling failures identified.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory version of the Code. This Code sets out the standards landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.
The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met.
In this investigation, we found failures in the landlord’s complaint handling policy. We have therefore referred this to our team responsible for monitoring compliance with the Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the installation of the resident’s kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord must apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failures noted in this determination. A copy should also be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this determination.
Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total compensation of £650. £200 the landlord’s previous compensation offer can be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £400 to acknowledge and redress the failures identified in relation to the kitchen works.
2. £250 in recognition of the complaint handling failures.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should carry out an inspection of the resident’s kitchen and set out its position on any remedial works required, including in the dining area of the kitchen. The landlord must write to the resident with the outcome of the inspection and include time scales of when works will be completed. A copy should be provided to the Ombudsman, within 6 weeks.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should carry out a review of the case and identify what it would do differently to prevent a recurrence. This should include how it will respond to complaints about the performance of its contractors. A copy of the outcome of the review should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.