Nottingham City Council (202228281)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228281

Nottingham City Homes Limited

15 April 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. Installation of kitchen units.
2. Installation of flooring in the kitchen.
3. The conduct of its contractors and the appointments they offered.
4. Temporary arrangements for the toilet, shower and cooker during repairs.

Background

The resident lived in a two-bed bungalow under a secure tenancy which began on 24 June 2020. The resident lived in the property with her daughters.
The resident describes herself as having several health conditions and disabilities including eosinophilic brittle asthma, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), mobility issues and several mental health conditions. The landlord’s records indicate that it was aware of the resident’s respiratory issues, but do not record the resident’s other health needs, despite these being raised as a factor in a previous Ombudsman complaint.
The complaint centres around renovations to the resident’s bathroom and kitchen in October 2022. The resident complained that the quality of workmanship was poor, including incorrectly installed tiles and flooring and mis-matched kitchen units. Additionally, the resident felt that the landlord had given no consideration to her health needs prior to the works commencing, including in offering her one appointment on a day she had a hospital appointment. She said this left her without access to hot and cold water, a shower, cooker and toilet for periods throughout the works. The resident also felt that the general conduct of the landlord’s contractors was poor.
The resident raised a complaint on 9 November 2022 in which she outlined these complaints. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 23 November 2022, in which it said:
1. It had attempted to complete the outstanding works, but the resident had denied it access. The landlord said it was happy to complete the works when the resident granted access.
2. It disputed the lengths of time the resident said she was without access to amenities and said that it had offered alternatives, such as access to a ‘Portaloo’.
3. It had considered the resident’s “demands” but “struggled to meet [her] expectations, to the point where [she] refused access to continue.”
The resident escalated her complaint on 11 December 2022. The resident disputed that she had told contractors to leave her property and confirmed that she had only been offered one appointment for repairs to her windows. Additionally, the resident said that she felt the alternatives offered were not appropriate, due to her health conditions. She highlighted that the substantive issues of poor workmanship and mis-matched kitchen units and tiles remained outstanding.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 9 January 2023, in which it said:
1. The resident had declined further repair appointments to her windows, until the landlord had completed the substantive works.
2. The contractor had instructed its staff to leave the resident’s property, but only after the resident had denied them access to continue the works.
3. It had offered alternative toilet arrangements, but the resident had declined these. It also said it had offered to reconnect her cooker daily, but that the resident declined this. It acknowledged that the resident’s white goods were in the bedroom for the period of the works but said this was done with the resident’s agreement.
4. The water was only off in the property for short periods. It did acknowledge that the shower was not operational for three days but felt this was reasonable given the scope of the works.
5. The slight colour variation in the kitchen units and plinths was unavoidable and did not affect the function of the kitchen.
6. It was happy to complete the works to the kitchen floor once the resident permitted its contractors access.
The resident moved from this property into another property owned by the landlord on 2 December 2022.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 20 April 2023 seeking a change in the landlord’s practices towards tenants, which she said had left her feeling “insignificant” and “unheard.”

Assessment and findings

General

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords have a statutory duty to keep in good repair and working order the installations in the property for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences). Once notified of a defect, landlords must make a lasting and effective repair in a reasonable time.
The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs as follows:
1. Emergency repairs, which the landlord commits to attending within 24 hours of notification.
2. Priority repairs, which the landlord commits to attending within 3 working days of notification.
3. Routine repairs, which the landlord commits to attending within 30 working days.
4. Planned works, which the landlord aims to complete within 90 working days in most cases.
The Decent Homes Standard, published by the Department for Communities and Local Government, set out the minimum standards for social landlords. This standard is enforced by the Regulator of Social Housing as part of its ‘home standard’. The Decent Homes Standard ensures that homes are:
1. Free from category one and two hazards, as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
2. In a “reasonable state of repair”. The property will be in a reasonable state of repair unless there are elements that are old and in need of repair. Age alone does not affect the state of repair.
3. Fitted with “reasonably modern facilities and services”. This standard establishes a set of timescales for replacing key home elements, such as kitchen or bathroom suites.
4. Able to provide “a reasonable degree of thermal comfort”.
It is important to note that the Decent Homes Standard considers the property’s safety and functionality, rather than aesthetic elements or preferences.
The majority of repairs in this case took place between 26 October and 1 November 2022. During this time, the landlord undertook substantial renovations of the resident’s kitchen and bathroom. The resident has said, in correspondence with our Service, that she feels that the landlord should have decanted her to another property whilst these works took place.

Installation of kitchen units

The landlord undertook a refit of the resident’s kitchen in October 2022, alongside other works to the bathroom. This included relaying the floor and replacing five kitchen units and the associated plinth.
The resident complained that a kitchen cupboard unit and the plinths used did not match the remainder of the kitchen units. The resident said that the landlord’s contractors put the original plinths outside and allowed them to get water damaged whilst the other repairs were ongoing. Similarly, the resident complained that some tiles in the kitchen did not match and had been poorly installed by the contractor.
The landlord said that the kitchen was fully functional and that it would not replace items for purely aesthetic reasons. Additionally, the landlord told the resident that the previous kitchen units and plinths had been discontinued and were no longer available. When the resident moved out of the property in December 2022 these issues remained unresolved.
In cases such as this, the Ombudsman considers what is fair and reasonable for both parties. It is not disputed that the kitchen was functional following the repairs and would meet the Decent Home Standard for safety and lifespan. However, the evidence shows poor workmanship and mis-matched kitchen units, tiles and plinths. This included:
1. Tiles not laid evenly against the wall.
2. Tiles with missing grout and edging.
3. Mis-matched plinths and kitchen units.
4. A large gap between the plinth and the base of the kitchen units.
Given that the original tiles, cupboard and plinths matched the other units, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to replace these like-for-like where possible. This is particularly so in the case of the plinths, which were in working order prior to being left outside whilst repairs were carried out. The damage caused to these items appears to be from the contractor’s negligence and therefore it is not reasonable that the resident should have suffered detriment as a result of this.
It is noted that the landlord has now moved to procuring white kitchens for all future lets to avoid a similar issue reoccurring.
Overall, the landlord’s contractors displayed poor workmanship which caused additional time and trouble for the resident in pursuing this complaint. Whilst it is acknowledged that the availability of the kitchen units would be beyond the landlord’s control, in the case of the plinths, these would not have needed replacing if its contractor had stored them correctly during the works. The landlord’s response to these requests was dismissive and did not proactively seek other remedies. For this reason, the Ombudsman considers that this was a service failure.

Installation of flooring in the kitchen

The resident stated in her complaint that the flooring installed in her kitchen by the landlord began to lift within 5 days of being laid. She said that due to her disabilities this presented a trip hazard, along with being poor quality workmanship and unsightly.
The landlord said this was because the resident asked the contractors to leave before they completed the work. The landlord attributed this to the resident being unhappy with the quality of work and the materials being used. The resident disputed this account and said that the contractor’s manager had instructed them to leave, following the resident’s complaint about the workmanship.
The evidence, including the landlord’s complaint responses, do indicate that it was willing to continue with the installation and repair of the flooring, once the resident permitted access. Internal correspondence between the landlord and its contractors indicates similar intentions. One contractor was not prepared to return to the property solo “due to the attitude, disrespectfulness and offensive nature that the tenant has previously shown.”
This Service is not able to say conclusively whether the works were ceased at the resident’s request or at the request of the contractor’s manager. At the time that the resident moved out of the property in December 2022, she said that the landlord’s contractors had not rectified the issues with the floor.
Throughout this process, the landlord retained its responsibility to complete the works satisfactorily, under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Following notification from either party (resident or contractor) that the works had been paused due to a complaint about the quality of work, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to survey the work itself to identify any shortfalls and, if necessary, arrange for further appointments. These appointments could have been with a different contractor if this was deemed appropriate. This is particularly important in this case, given the resident’s mobility issues and disabilities and the potential for the lifted flooring to cause a trip hazard.
By failing to do this, the landlord has exacerbated and prolonged the situation and left the resident at detriment. The works also remained outstanding for far longer than indicated in the landlord’s timescales, even after the resident had indicated in her complaint and escalation that she was not denying access and was requesting the works to be completed. For these reasons, this is a service failure.

Temporary arrangements for the toilet, shower and cooker during repairs

During the works to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom she said that she was without access to her shower, cooker and toilet for periods of time. The Ombudsman acknowledges that works of this type will often involve periods without access to amenities and therefore this Service has considered what steps the landlord took to mitigate this for the resident.
The resident said that her shower was not operational for the duration of the works to the bathroom (one week), as the contractors had disconnected it. The landlord said that the shower was not operational for three days during the works. The resident said that she was advised by the landlord to wash in the kitchen sink. The landlord does not appear to have considered alternative arrangements for this for the resident in this period.
Similarly, the resident was without access to hot and cold water during work hours for the week when the works took place. The resident said that this was a total loss of water during work hours, but the landlord contested this and said that there were only intermittent losses of water during the days.
Given the relatively short period of time, this was reasonable, as the resident had access to water in the kitchen during this period in the mornings and evenings. This Service acknowledges that this is not ideal, however it would have been disproportionate for the landlord to decant the resident for this period, based on lack of access to a shower alone, given the ongoing access to water, albeit at more limited times.
The resident said she was without her cooker for one week, as the contractor’s had disconnected it and moved it into her daughter’s bedroom. The landlord said, in its complaint responses, that its contractors had offered to reconnect the cooker daily, however the resident declined this as she felt she could use her microwave instead. The resident disputes this account. She said that this offer was not made and that the person who said they would do this was not on site for some of the days when work was taking place.
Neither party disputes that the resident’s white goods were removed from the kitchen and placed in a bedroom for the duration of the works. Except for the fridge/freezer, these were disconnected and not operational. The resident said that this caused her daughter to need to move out of the property during the works, as her bedroom was used to house the appliances.
In general, it is accepted that works of these types will often involve the temporary relocation of appliances and that these may not be functional for the duration. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the impact of this prior to the works beginning.
Most crucially for the resident, she said that she was without access to her toilet for one week, during working hours (approximately 8am to 5pm on most of the days). The resident reports having IBS and said that she needed access to a toilet in a timely way. There is again no evidence that the landlord considered this prior to the works commencing.
When the resident challenged this once the works had begun, the landlord and its contractors suggested:
1. That the resident travel to a local supermarket during the day to use the toilet. The resident has IBS and, on occasions, needs to use the toilet urgently. This was not an appropriate suggestion and was indicative of a lack of understanding of the resident’s health needs.
2. That the resident travelled to her older daughter’s property to use the toilet. The resident said this was around 20 minutes away from her property. Similarly to the suggestion around the supermarket, this was inappropriate given the needs of the resident.
3. Installing a ‘porta-potty’ in the property for the resident to use. The resident told the landlord she was not able to crouch or kneel onto the floor to use this and that it would be unsuitable. The landlord said it offered to build a plinth or platform to assist with this, but that the resident declined this. The resident disputes being offered this.
4. Installing a ‘Portaloo’ outside the property’s front or back door. During this period, the resident had been regularly reporting anti-social behaviour around her property. This included large groups of young people or others under the influence of substances, who she said would be verbally aggressive or throw things at her property. For these reasons, the resident said that a ‘Portaloo’ outside of her property would not be appropriate, as it was likely to elicit more anti-social behaviour and may have been damaged.
Given the culmination of a lack of access to a toilet and shower, along with more limited access to water, when paired with the resident’s health issues, the landlord should have assessed the need for a decant.There is no evidence that the landlord considered this prior to, or during, the works.
Whilst some aspects of the disturbance to the resident’s property and use of amenities were reasonable and expected, given the level of work, the landlord’s overall approach was reactive and did not consider the resident’s needs fully. This left a vulnerable resident without access to a shower or toilet and more limited access to water for a period of several days. For these reasons, there has been maladministration in its handling of these temporary arrangements overall.

Contractor conduct and appointments offered

The resident complained about the conduct of the landlord’s contractors, in particular that they did not take account of her health needs in planning the works. The resident described particular conduct and behaviour, including contractors laughing at her need to use the toilet and suggesting that she went to the supermarket toilet instead.
The resident felt that the landlord had not planned or considered her needs prior to the works and that this left her feeling belittled, “ignored”, “insignificant” and “unheard”. The resident said that her health conditions meant that she needed regular and timely access to a toilet. Additionally, she described her property being left as an “assault course” with different components and her white goods being left in the hallways. She said that this made moving around the property, with her disabilities, very challenging and resulted in her daughter moving out of the property for the duration of the works.
The resident felt that the landlord should have decanted her during the works and that this would have resolved the practical issues within the property and avoided the distress and inconvenience that she felt.
There has been no evidence provided to indicate that the landlord, or its contractor, assessed whether the scope of the works would cause detriment to the resident prior to works commencing. This is an important consideration for any resident, but particularly those that have known health conditions or disabilities. The landlord’s failure to do this means that it had not considered any reasonable adjustments it could have made to prevent distress and further inconvenience for the resident.
Additionally, the resident said that the landlord offered only one appointment for the replacement of her windows, on a day when she had a hospital appointment. The landlord said that it offered a further appointment, but the resident declined this until all other outstanding work was done. The resident disputes this. Landlords should proactively manage appointments with residents to ensure that they are mutually convenient and, likewise, residents must permit reasonable access. It is not possible for this Service to accurately determine the course of events in this case as the accounts conflict.
Overall, taking together the reported behaviour of the landlord’s contractors this is maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of installation of the kitchen units.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of installation of flooring in the kitchen.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the conduct of its contractors and the appointments they offered.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of temporary arrangements for the toilet, shower and cooker during repairs.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £1100 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £100 for the inconvenience of the landlord’s poor-quality workmanship when installing the kitchen units and plinths.
  2. £150 for the inconvenience of the landlord’s handling of the kitchen floor installation.
  3. £150 for the distress caused by the poor conduct of the landlord’s contractors during the works.
  4. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to consider the resident’s health needs prior to the works commencing and whether this would warrant a decant.
  5. £200 for the time and trouble of pursuing these complaints to conclusion.

This compensation is in addition to any previous awards made by the landlord and must be paid directly to the resident, not applied to her rent account, unless she requests this.

Review its processes for logging and assessing the health and disability needs of residents. This must include an assessment of any learning that is required for staff to be able to identify these needs and a process for applying these to future repair and planned improvement works and decant requests.
Review its processes for responding to complaints about the workmanship or level or service being provided by its contractors. This review must identify any organisation learning and outline how this will be carried out within a period not exceeding six weeks.

Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Conduct a self-assessment against the recommendation in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report entitled ‘Attitude, respect and rights: A relationship of equals’, which is available on our website. The self-assessment must identify any learning identified, particularly from this case, and include an action plan to resolve this within a period not exceeding six weeks.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales shown above.