‘Johnnie’ Johnson Housing Trust Limited (202223385)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223385

‘Johnnie’ Johnson Housing Trust Limited

24 July 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

1. The complaint concerns how the landlord handled the renewal of the kitchen in the property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a bungalow.
3. In April and May 2022, a new kitchen was fitted in the property. Following the installation, the landlord’s contractor returned on several occasions to fix issues reported by the resident. On 5 October 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord and raised a complaint about how the kitchen renewal had been handled. She described the elements of the complaint as:
   1. It had taken six months from when the kitchen renewal was first approved in October 2021 until the work started on 27 April 2022.
   2. She had received poor communication from both the landlord and its contractor as to how and when the work would proceed.
   3. There was a delay to the work starting due to the poor condition of the kitchen floor. While the issues with the floor were resolved, the new kitchen was left in the garden.
   4. She and her partner endured significant disruption while the work went ahead.
   5. The quality of the finished kitchen was very poor. The work tops and units were not fitted properly, and the cooker hood was not correctly vented.
   6. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the outstanding issues in the kitchen were resolved and that she receive suitable compensation for the stress and inconvenience that matter had caused her and her partner.
4. The landlord sent a stage one complaint response on 14 October 2022. It visited the resident at the property to inspect the kitchen and discuss the outstanding issues of the complaint on 1 December 2022 and then sent a stage two complaint response on 6 December 2022. In its responses, the landlord:
   1. Accepted that significant parts of the kitchen had been fitted to a poor standard. It then stated that it had raised work to replace the corner unit, refix the wall unit and work tops, and repair the cooker hood.
   2. Also accepted that the removal of the old kitchen and installation of the new kitchen had been managed poorly. It apologised to the resident for the great amount of upset this had caused and stated that it understood that a representative from the contractor had also apologised in person.
   3. Offered the resident £250 compensation in recognition of the stress and inconvenience the issue had caused her and her partner.
5. In January 2023, the resident requested that the landlord review its compensation offer. The landlord undertook a review and increased its offer to £500. It also informed the resident that the contractor had offered an additional £50 in recognition of the increase in electricity usage caused by the kitchen renewal.
6. In referring the case to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as that there were still issues with the kitchen work tops and the level of compensation offered was not sufficient in light of the significant disruption and distress the work had caused. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the work tops were replaced and the compensation offer was increased to £8,150, which she broke down as £4,250 for the distress and inconvenience she had suffered and £3,900 for the distress and inconvenience her partner had suffered.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

7. The landlord’s asset management policy states that it is its responsibility to repair and maintain “components within properties that are subject to normal wear and tear and when they have reached the end of their ‘notional life’ (expected period of time that components would last under normal usage conditions) – usually as programmed works”.  The policy explains that its planned maintenance programme is agreed annually as part of its budget setting process.
8. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it follows the guidance provided by this Service and will consider offering compensation for “actual, proven financial loss sustained as a direct result of maladministration or service failure, and/or avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment or other unfair impact of maladministration or service failure”. The policy recommends a payment of over £100 in circumstances were “there has been a serious failure in service standards [and] an unacceptable number of attempts to resolve and address an issue”.

How the landlord handled the renewal of the kitchen in the property

9. When the landlord was informed by the resident of her dissatisfaction with how the kitchen renewal had been handled, it had a duty to respond to the matter in line with its obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures.
10. It is not in dispute that the resident received a poor service from both the landlord and its contractor during the kitchen installation. The landlord has accepted that the resident experienced a poor level of communication during the delivery of the new kitchen, the discussions concerning the starting date of the installation and how the issues with the condition of the flooring would affect the start of the work. The landlord also agreed with the resident that the quality of the finished work was unacceptable. It arranged to have one unit replaced and repair work undertaken to a wall unit, the cooker hood and the work tops.
11. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, offer compensation and explain what steps it had taken to improve its service. This position is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
12. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It put things right by arranging follow-on work to remedy the issues with the kitchen raised by the resident and offering £500 compensation. It looked to learn from its mistakes by improving its communication with the resident and meeting with its contractor regarding the quality of its work. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that once the complaint had been raised, the landlord assigned a point-of-contact to keep the resident updated on the progress of the work, arranged joint inspections of the kitchen with the contractor, and corresponded with the contactor regarding the quality of its work and to ensure all outstanding work was completed.
13. The landlord’s offer of £500 compensation was calculated in line with its compensation policy detailed above. This offer was declined by the resident, who requested a compensation sum of £8,150. The Ombudsman’s awards of compensation are not intended to be punitive and we do not offer damages in the way that a court might. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, this Service takes account of a range of factors including any particular distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions. Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s awards are generally moderate, taking into account the landlord’s need to make the most effective use of its limited resources as a social landlord for the benefit of all its residents.
14. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website) suggests a payment of £100 to £600 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration by a landlord. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. Therefore, a payment of £500 that recognised the poor communication and service experienced by the resident, and the distress and inconvenience caused in having to raise a complaint in order to resolve the issues is appropriate in the circumstances. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
15. The resident requested that the landlord replace the kitchen work tops. An internal email sent by the landlord following an inspection of the kitchen on 29 March 2023 noted that the there was an issue with the work top mitre joints. Following work by the contractor to remedy the issue, the landlord stated that it would undertake a follow-up inspection of the joints in 12 months to determine if the joints had opened up or the work had resolved the matter. The landlord’s repair logs state that it received a report from the resident on 4 April 2023 that the work tops were loose. The contractor attended on 24 April 2023 and fixed a bracket on the underside of a work top. There are no further reports in the repair logs relating to the work tops after this date.
16. The landlord has acted appropriately to the resident’s reports about the worktops. It arranged for the joints to be repaired and organised an inspection to ensure the repair resolved the issue. A further problem with a bracket was resolved by the contractor. Therefore, it is reasonable that the landlord took the decision not to replace the work tops following these repairs. However, if the follow-on inspection discovered further issues with the joints, it would be expected to review this decision.

Determination

17. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it handled the renewal of the kitchen which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Recommendations

18. As the finding of reasonable redress was made based on the landlord’s offer of £500 compensation, it is recommended that this is now paid to the resident if the landlord has not done so already.