Onward Homes Limited (202127520)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127520

Onward Homes Limited

7 November 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of her kitchen and her request for the kitchen to be renewed.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. In September 2020, the resident moved into her home, which had non-matching cupboard doors in the kitchen. In July 2021, the resident complained that her cupboards did not match and that she would like her kitchen to be replaced. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint, explaining that the kitchen units were functional and so did not qualify to be immediately replaced. Nevertheless, the landlord stated to the resident that her kitchen was already due for a renewal in the financial year of 2023/2024, as part of its planned works.
4. Both the landlord and resident have stated that the resident escalated her complaint to the landlord in December 2021, as she was still unhappy that her kitchen would not be replaced sooner than 2023/24 (although evidence of this escalation has not been provided to this Service). The resident has stated that she contacted the landlord again in January 2022, and was told that her renewal would now be completed in the year 2022.
5. In February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again, to get an update on her renewal. The landlord confirmed that it had told the resident her renewal would take place in 2022 (in contradiction to its statement from the stage one response). However, it explained that its proposed planned works encompassed a large area and would be spread over two years. It stated that the resident’s kitchen would now be renewed in 2023/24 again.
6. The resident was dissatisfied that she had not been updated on her kitchen renewal, and that it would no longer take place in 2022. She asked to escalate her complaint in February 2022. The landlord responded on 7 April 2022. It reiterated that as this was an issue concerning aesthetics, the kitchen units did not qualify for replacement outside of the planned works timetable. It did however acknowledge the resident’s frustration and offered to replace some of the unit doors in the interim, to ensure that they matched. It confirmed that the kitchen was due for renewal in 2023/24 and assured the resident that it would be in contact in April 2023 to discuss timescales. 
7. The resident has complained to this Service that her kitchen is in a poor condition and is “dangerous”. She continues to be dissatisfied that the renewal was delayed from being completed in 2022, to 2023/24. As an outcome the resident would like the kitchen renewal to be brought forward to be completed in 2022.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

8. Under paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion have not exhausted a member landlord’s complaint procedure. The resident has stated as part of her complaint to this Service that her kitchen is in poor condition and is dangerous. However, these aspects of complaint were not raised to the landlord in her formal complaint, which only concerned the aesthetics of her cupboards, and the delay to the kitchen renewal. As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the landlord, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of her kitchen and her request for the kitchen to be renewed.

9. In accordance with the government’s Decent Home Standards guidance, the expected lifetime of a kitchen in a house is 30 years. If the kitchen is damaged before this period and cannot be economically repaired, a full refurbishment may be required at an earlier date. A landlord would be expected to act in accordance with the above guidance and inspect the kitchen, to ascertain if a repair would be suitable, before arranging a replacement.
10. However, in this instance, the resident did not raise a complaint about repairs to her kitchen, but instead stated that her cupboards did not match and were aesthetically displeasing. Although it may have been helpful for the landlord to have inspected the resident’s kitchen at this point, it was not obligated to assess if a new kitchen was required based on its repair obligation, as this was not the focus of the complaint.
11. The landlord’s repairs policy states that void properties will be inspected and repaired in accordance with the landlord’s void standard and procedure, to ensure that properties offered for letting are of a consistent standard. The landlord will only re-let vacant properties once they have reached this standard, which will ensure that properties are ready for occupation, clean and meet the needs of incoming customers. Additionally, a landlord is obligated, in accordance with the Decent Homes Standard, and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that when a tenancy commences, the property is “fit for human habitation” and free from category one hazards. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) defines a category one hazard as where “a hazard is a serious and immediate risk to a person’s health and safety”.
12. In its response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord acted reasonably and within its obligations, by measuring the state of her cupboards against its void occupational standard. It confirmed to the resident that the units were assessed as operable and in working order during the voids period. It also reminded the resident that she had accepted the condition of the kitchen when viewing the property in September 2020. Subsequently it advised her that the kitchen cupboards had been matched with the closest possible fit during the voids period, and that, as they were functional and did not present a hazard, they did not meet the requirement for replacement at the time of inspection. This was reasonable as the landlord had assessed the state of the cupboards against its own policy standards, and found them to be appropriate.
13. Planned works are generally part of a larger investment scheme, and a landlord would be expected to balance costs, alongside its renewal responsibilities. Unless the resident’s kitchen was in an extreme state, the landlord was unlikely to be able to justify renewing the resident’s kitchen at an earlier date. As the resident had only complained about the aesthetics of her kitchen, the landlord was reasonable to conclude that replacing her kitchen as planned in 2023/24, sufficiently addressed her repair issues. The landlord also acted appropriately by offering to undertake repairs to the resident’s cupboards, to make them more aesthetically pleasing in the interim.
14. The landlord stated in its stage one response on 27 July 2021, that the resident’s kitchen would be replaced in the financial year 2023/24. In later correspondence, the landlord confirmed with the resident that her works had been brought forward to be completed in the financial year of 2022. After the resident chased the landlord for an update in February 2022, it informed her that the works had now been selected to once again be completed in 2023/24. To act in accordance with general good customer service, the landlord would be expected to keep the resident updated of any changes to the planned works. It would also be expected to explain any inconsistencies and to manage her expectations accordingly. The landlord’s standard of communication was not appropriate as it failed to keep the resident informed of the changes to the works. It also failed to set the resident’s expectations and caused stress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord did not appropriately address these inconsistencies in its final complaint response, as an apology and explanation would have been appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord’s errors in its communication amount to service failure in this case.

The landlord’s complaint handling

15. The landlord’s complaint policy comprises of two stages. At stage one the landlord is expected to respond within ten working days of the resident’s complaint. If the resident escalates their complaint to stage two, the landlord is again expected to respond within ten working days. Additionally, as a member of this Service, the landlord is expected to abide by our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This states that if the complaint is not resolved at stage one to the resident’s satisfaction, it shall be progressed to the next stage in accordance with the landlord’s procedure.
16. The resident initially complained on 13 July 2021, which the landlord responded to within the correct timescales on 27 July 2021. Both the landlord and resident have stated that she escalated her complaint in December 2021, (although the escalation has not been provided as evidence to this Service). The landlord did not initially issue a stage two response, meaning the resident was required to follow up on her complaint in February 2022. The landlord escalated her complaint in March 2022, finally responding on 7 April 2022. This was not appropriate, as this duration was not in line with the above timescales set out in the landlord’s own policy.
17. According to the Code the landlord should have escalated the resident’s complaint in December 2021, when she expressed her dissatisfaction at the landlord’s stage one response. Additionally, when escalating her complaint, the landlord stated that it had raised the resident’s complaint to a stage one and a half. This stage does not exist within the landlord’s complaints policy and so was not in-line with its own procedure. The landlord’s complaint handling was confusing and protracted. This added to its errors in communication and caused stress and inconvenience to the resident amounting to service failure.

Determination (decision)

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about the condition of her kitchen and to her request for the kitchen to be renewed.
19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling. 

Orders

20. Landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £50.00 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the lack of clarity in its communication. This should be paid within four weeks of the date of this report.
    2. Pay the resident £50.00 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by poor complaint handling. This should be paid within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

21. The landlord should consider carrying out an inspection of the resident’s kitchen, to ascertain if interim repairs are required above aesthetics, before the renewal in 2023/24.