Origin Housing Limited (202015788)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015788

Origin Housing Limited

23 March 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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. a leak in her kitchen involving the kitchen sink and the condensation pipe from the boiler;
2. the installation of a new kitchen at her property, including:
  1. measurements for an integrated washing machine;
  2. damage caused to the resident’s washing machine;
  3. additional works required due to missing parts;
  4. additional works required to correct unsafe electrical installations;
  5. the disposal of debris.
The Ombudsman has also identified concerns about the landlord’s complaints handling which has been included as part of this investigation.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 26 September 2008. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. Following a complaint, the landlord will initially attempt to informally resolve the complaint. If this is not successful, it will provide a stage one response within 10 working days or explain why a response could not be provided within this timeframe. Should the resident request an escalation of the complaint, a stage two response will be provided within a further 20 working days.
The landlord uses a contractor for its repair obligations.
The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes that non-emergency works will be attended to by the landlord’s contractor within 28 days.

Summary of events

The resident has reported that she has experienced leaks in her kitchen for a number of years prior to the period of the complaint. This service has received correspondence from the resident to the landlord dated 19 February 2020 in which she reports such a leak. She also referred to the reports as a complaint, and requested the landlord acknowledge her complaint. It is not evident whether the landlord acknowledged this complaint, or whether it arranged for any repair works. The landlord has not provided this service with its repair logs for the property.
On 30 June 2020, the resident noted she was not satisfied with the landlord’s communication regarding repairs and that previous repair appointments had been missed by the landlord’s operatives. Following this communication, the landlord noted it had forwarded her concerns to its repair team and enquired as to whether the team had contacted the resident. The resident advised on 2 July 2020 that it had not. It is not evident that the landlord acknowledged this or made any further attempts to arrange repairs.
It is evident that the leak was still affecting the resident as of November 2020. In or around 7 December 2020, the landlord’s contractor carried out repair works to the pipes in the resident’s kitchen to address the leak. The resident reported that there were ongoing leaks, but that she had not been able to contact the landlord’s contractor directly. The resident also noted that her kitchen was in disrepair and also required adaptations due to her disability, and that the landlord had previously advised in 2014 that it would be replaced.
The landlord subsequently logged the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint and on 11 December 2020, the landlord confirmed its contractor was investigating the leak and that it would shortly provide an update regarding replacing the kitchen. The leak was subsequently repaired by the contractor.
Based on the correspondence between the parties, it is evident that the landlord arranged for its contractor to discuss the design of the new kitchen with the resident and subsequently install the kitchen. It is evident, however, that the contractor would not be in an immediate position to install the kitchen, and so it agreed for the resident to arrange her own builder to carry out the installation.
The resident introduced her builder to the landlord on 18 December 2020 and on the same date, the landlord provided both the resident and the builder with the plans for the kitchen. The landlord also confirmed the kitchen would be delivered for installation on 21 December 2020.
Following the completion of the kitchen, on 8 January 2021, the resident reported that she had previously discussed with the contractor the size of the kitchen units so she could determine what washing machine to purchase. The resident had subsequently purchased a washing machine based on her understanding of the measurements. The units had not been the expected size, however, resulting in the resident needing to purchase a further washing machine to fit the actual size. The resident also advised that there had been parts missing from the kitchen supplied by the contractor, resulting in her paying the builder to complete the kitchen using additional parts. Finally, she reported that the contractor had not collected the debris that was left over from the installation.
On the same date, the landlord’s internal communications confirmed the complaint had now been raised to stage one of its internal complaints process.
Between around 20 January 2021 to 11 February 2021, the resident and the contractor exchanged correspondence relating to the resident’s concerns, which included the following:
1. the resident expressed her concern that the contractor had promised her an ‘integrated’ kitchen, i.e. one that had kitchen appliances integrated into the design. The landlord disputed it had given any indication that the kitchen was ‘integrated’;
2. regarding the size of the washing machine, the resident advised that the contractor’s operative had advised her of the size of the cabinet opening and that she had purchased a washing machine on the basis of this advice. The contractor advised that the issue with the washing machine was that it was too deep, and that it had spoken with its operative who had confirmed they had not discussed the depth of the cabinet. The pipework at the rear of the cabinet had reduced the available depth, and the contractor advised that it considered the resident’s builder should have made her aware of this;
3. regarding the additional works completed by her builder, the resident advised that when the kitchen was being designed, she had advised she wanted shelves. When the kitchen was supplied, there were no parts for the shelving, and that she had to pay for her builder to install replacement parts. The contractor subsequently advised it had spoken with the builder who had advised it that the additional items on the invoice were for additional units not on the kitchen design and also for the mounting of a TV. The contractor subsequently advised that it was not responsible for the costs of these additional works;
4. the resident also advised that the builder had identified that a number of electrical switches in the kitchen were unsafe and so she paid for these to be replaced/relocated. The contractor advised that the resident should have contacted either itself or the landlord regarding this repair in the first instance. The contractor subsequently offered for its electrician to attend to the property to carry out an inspection and assess for any further repairs. It is not evident that the resident has taken up the contractor’s offer;
5. the resident further advised that following the installation of the new kitchen there was debris left at the property, which she considered was the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor advised that it had attended the property following the removal of the previous kitchen (which it had done as a goodwill measure) at which point it had discussed with the builder whether they wanted it to return to remove debris from the installation, but that the builder had informed it they would remove the debris themselves. The contractor advised that it therefore considered it the responsibility of the builder to attend to this debris;
6. the resident advised that when the contractor had attender her property in early December 2020 to fix the leak, its operative had moved her original washing machine, following which the washing machine displayed an error code. The contractor responded that there was no evidence the washing machine had been damaged by its operative;
7. the resident additionally noted that following the attendance of the contractor’s operative to fix the leak, the operative had advised that the condensation pipe for the boiler remained uncapped and needed to be addressed. The landlord had subsequently arranged for a plumber to attend to the boiler on 11 and 12 December 2020, during which the resident was left without hot water. Additionally, the plumber had advised the resident this was a temporary fix and that a permanent fix was required. The contractor advised the resident it had not been responsible for these works and so could not comment further.
On 26 February 2021, the landlord provided its formal complaint response, which it described as its “final” response. The landlord advised it had reviewed the correspondence between the resident and its contractor and that it “cannot find that the information you have been sent is incorrect.” It reiterated the contractor’s offer to attend the property and assess for additional repairs and also advised that it found that the communication between the parties had been regular and satisfactory.
The resident referred her complaint to this service, following which, this service sought additional information from the landlord. On 11 June 2021, the landlord advised this service that regarding the permanent fix required for the condensation pipe, it had sought to arrange works for 12 May 2021 (the delay being due to COVID-19 restrictions), but these had subsequently been cancelled by the resident on 6 May 2021, and that she had arranged for her own works to be carried out. The landlord further advised it was willing to review any expenses incurred, including those incurred for any necessary works carried out by her builder. It accepted that it was likely there were additional costs incurred for remedial works as part of the kitchen installation and so it was willing to make a “reasonable payment” in relation to these. The landlord also noted the resident had raised concerns that a fire door needed to be installed at the property, and that it had subsequently ordered one, although it could take up to 16 weeks to be delivered. It is not evident if any of the above information was communicated to the resident at this time.
On 25 June 2021, the landlord acknowledged its communication regarding the kitchen installation and repairs had been below its standards and that issues had taken an extended time to be resolved. The landlord subsequently offered £400 to reflect the resident’s trouble and inconvenience.
Throughout July 2021, the parties had discussions about the resident moving to a new property which included a level access bathroom as recommended by the resident’s occupational therapist. As part of this move, the landlord agreed to cover the costs for the resident’s builder to reinstall her new kitchen in the new property. On 28 July 2021, however, the resident informed the landlord she no longer wished to move into the new property.
On 21 December 2021, the landlord’s contractor enquired with the resident as to whether there were any ongoing maintenance issues at the property, to which the resident noted there still was no fire door installed at the property.

Assessment and findings

Concerns about a leak in the resident’s kitchen involving the kitchen sink and the condensation pipe from the boiler.

Following the resident’s initial reports in February 2020 that she was experiencing a leak, it is not evident whether the landlord acknowledged the complaint or arranged for any works. Additionally, following the resident’s further concerns about the leak in June 2020, while it is evident the landlord had expected its repairs team to have followed up the leak, it is not evident that it took any further action following the resident’s advice she had received no contact.
It is evident that the leak was still affecting the resident in or around November 2020, which she again reported to the landlord. In or around early December 2020, the landlord attempted a repair, however, the resident reported that the leak was ongoing. Following this further report, on this occasion, the landlord appropriately arranged for a further repair to the leak through its contractor within a reasonable timeframe.
The contractor’s operative identified that the boiler condensation pipe was left uncapped and subsequently a plumber was arranged to fix this, which resulted in the resident being without hot water for two days. The resident has advised that following this further fix, the plumber advised it was only temporary and a new fix was required. This service has not been provided with any evidence to suggest the landlord followed this visit up with any attempt to book in any further repairs.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy notes that non-emergency works will be attended to by the landlord’s contractor within 28 days. Its failure to attend to this leak in February 2020, and again in June 2020 was a significant departure from its policy and would have caused significant distress to the resident, who was left unsure about how the leak would be addressed, despite reporting it on multiple occasions.
Keeping an accurate audit trail is an important part of a landlord’s service delivery. The Landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of any repair works so that it can satisfy itself and the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman if necessary) that it took all reasonable steps following receiving a report of a leak. As part of its formal response, the landlord failed to demonstrate it had investigated why it had not responded to the earlier leaks or provide a position as to whether this constituted service failure, despite being aware that this concern was part of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s formal response relied primarily on the earlier response given by its contractor, however, the contractor had been unable to comment on the actions of the plumber as they were not an operative of the contractor. The landlord would have been aware from the resident’s comments that she considered a more permanent fix was required for her boiler condensation pipe, however, the landlord failed to address this concern in its formal response or address the resident’s concerns about being left without hot water.
The landlord has advised that it subsequently arranged for further works, but that due to delays related to COVID-19 and given that the works were non-urgent, the works could not take place until May 2021. The Ombudsman considers delays for non-urgent works on this basis to be reasonable where a landlord has provided reasonable communication to the resident. While this service has not been provided with copies of such communication, it is evident that the resident had been made aware of the delays as she subsequently cancelled these works in favour of using her own operative to complete them earlier. The landlord has advised it will consider any reasonable expenses incurred, and so a recommendation had been made below that it contact the resident in relation to this.
Following further concerns from the resident, the landlord appropriately offered a further response in which it acknowledged its failings regarding communication and that the delays to the repairs were below its service standards. It subsequently offered £400 compensation to reflect the trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident. It is evident that this amount of compensation was intended to provide a remedy to all elements of the resident’s complaint. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the amount of compensation provided a reasonable remedy for the delays and poor communication in relation to the leaks and condensation pipe repairs only. The other elements of the complaint are considered below.
In summary, the landlord’s significant delays to attending to the leaks, along with its poor communications to the resident following her reports, and its failure to properly investigate these delays in its formal response would have led to a finding of maladministration had the landlord not made an offer of compensation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Washing machine measurements

The resident has advised that she considers the contractor’s operative to have given her verbal advice about what washing machine to buy to fit in the new kitchen and that she subsequently purchased a washing machine based on this advice. This service was not present during this conversation, nor was this conversation recorded. There were also no written follow up communications confirming this conversation or any instructions relating to the size of any washing machine.
It is evident from the kitchen plan supplied that there is a space where a washing machine could be placed, and the dimensions of that space are provided. The plan does not depict any pipework. Despite this, it is somewhat self-evident that some pipework would be required for plumbing in a washing machine, and that the full depth of the space could therefore not be used.
Following the resident’s expression of concern regarding this issue, the contractor appropriately investigated the issue by questioning its operative about their discussion with the resident. Given that the operative denied giving advice about what washing machine would fit in the space, it was reasonable for the contractor to advise it would not take responsibility for the incorrect washing machine purchased by the resident.
Additionally, while the resident has expressed her position that the contractor had promised an ‘integrated’ kitchen, this service has not been provided with any correspondence to suggest it had promised a kitchen with an integrated washing machine, nor do the plans depict a washing machine integrated into the design. It was therefore also reasonable for the contractor to have disputed the resident’s claim it had promised this.
In summary, this service does not dispute the resident’s account of the conversation had with the contractor’s operative, however, given that the contractor’s operative has a differing account, based on the lack of any additional evidence to prove what was discussed, this service cannot make a determination one way or the other. The contractor’s investigation into this complaint was, however, reasonable in the circumstances, and it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on this position in its formal response.

Damage to washing machine

The resident has advised that following the contractor’s operative attending to the leaking pipes in her kitchen in December 2020 and temporarily moving her original washing machine, the washing machine started displaying a fault code. It is not evident that the resident raised this concern at the time of the visit, or immediately after.
Following the resident raising this concern with the contractor in January 2021, the contractor again questioned its operative, who denied causing any damage to the washing machine. The resident did not have any additional evidence as to the cause of the fault displayed on the washing machine, such as a report from a washing machine repair person. It is not evident that moving a washing machine would result in such a fault, nor is it evident that the contractor’s operative mistreated the washing machine.
While it may be the case that the washing machine developed a fault following the visit of the contractor’s operative, there has been no additional evidence presented to indicate the contractor’s operative caused this fault. As with above, the contractor’s investigation into this complaint and conclusion there was no service failure was reasonable in the circumstances, and it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on this position in its formal response.

Additional works to kitchen

The resident reported that some parts of the kitchen were not delivered, resulting in her builder having to source and install replacement parts, for which the resident incurred a cost. It is not entirely evident which parts the resident considered to be missing, however, in her correspondence with the contractor, she noted she had initially requested shelving, which had not been provided.
While the Ombudsman does not dispute that shelving was verbally discussed, there is no record of shelving being referred to in any communication between the parties, nor does the kitchen design document depict shelving. It is also not evident that the resident, nor her builder raised this concern during the installation of the kitchen, which denied the contractor the opportunity to provide the allegedly missing parts.
Following the resident raising this concern, the contractor appropriately liaised with the builder, who informed it that the additional installations related to extra shelves and also the installation of a television. It is not evident that the builder reported any required parts to be missing.
Additionally, the resident reported that her builder identified that the electrical installations in the kitchen, specifically the switch for the cooker, was unsafe and subsequently relocated this switch to the cost of the resident. There is no evidence to suggest this work was agreed to prior to the installation of the kitchen, nor is there any evidence that either the builder or the resident sought the permission of the contractor or landlord prior to commencing with this work. Given that there is no evidence there was any immediate danger caused by the electrical installations, the resident should have informed the landlord that her builder had reported they were unsafe, prior to commencing with any works. Given that the landlord is responsible for the electrical installations in the property, the landlord should have had the opportunity to investigate and determine the safety of the installations for itself, and subsequently to have carried out any necessary repairs using its own operatives.
Following the resident’s concerns about the costs for the electrical installations, the contractor, and subsequently the landlord, offered to arrange for its electrician to carry out an inspection. While it did not specifically state this was pursuant to considering whether it would contribute to the cost of the works, this was nevertheless an appropriate step in its investigation of the complaint, and it was reasonable for it to have offered this step in its formal response.
In summary, the landlord’s investigation to the complaint relating to missing parts of the kitchen was reasonable and in the absence of any specific evidence, it was fair that it did not determine service failure. Additionally, the landlord’s offer for its electrician to initially carry out an inspection was also a reasonable response to the concerns about costs for the works to the electrical installations.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has since expressed it is willing to make a reasonable payment in relation to any make good works necessary, although it is not evident whether it has communicated this to the resident. A recommendation has therefore been made below that the landlord reiterate its offer for a further inspection and to subsequently provide its position regarding any additional payments.

Debris

It is evident that the removal of a kitchen and the installation of a new kitchen will result in some level of debris requiring removal. It is not disputed that following the dismantling of the original kitchen, the contractor collected the debris. The contractor has advised that at this point, it offered to collect the debris resulting from the installation of the new kitchen, however, the builder declined and advised they would remove the debris. The resident has advised that the debris was not removed by the builder following the installation.
This service has not been provided with any evidence to suggest a scope of works was agreed with the builder which explicitly included the removal of any debris. Nor has this service been provided with any written evidence to suggest the builder had informed the contractor they would remove the debris. While the Ombudsman does not dispute this conversation took place, as with above, this service was not present during this conversation and so no determination can be made as to whether this agreement was made.
In its correspondence with the resident, the contractor advised it had initially collected the debris from the removal of the original kitchen out of goodwill. It also suggested that it would be expected that the builder would remove all debris.
Whether or not there was an implied contractual term for the builder to remove the debris is a matter for a court to decide. The Ombudsman can only consider whether the contractor’s communication in such instances was reasonable. This service has not been provided with any evidence to suggest that the contractor informed the resident it expected the builder to remove the debris. The contractor also created an expectation it would collect the debris when it did so following the removal of the initial kitchen. It did not follow this up with any correspondence to suggest this had been done out of goodwill, or that it had verbally agreed with the builder that they would remove the rest of the debris.
While the Ombudsman understands that the debris has now been cleared, the contractor’s lack of clarity caused the resident time and trouble in chasing up this element of the complaint. This constituted service failure, and an amount of £50 compensation has been ordered to reflect the resident’s distress, time, and trouble.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy notes that following a complaint, it will initially attempt to informally resolve the complaint. If this is unsuccessful, it will provide a stage one response within 10 working days of a complaint, or otherwise advise why an extension or alternative approach is required.
Following the resident’s initial reports of a leak in February 2020, she requested the landlord treat her reports as a complaint. While not every report will constitute a formal complaint, this service has not been provided with any evidence to suggest the landlord acknowledged this report or provided an explanation as to why it would not consider the report as a complaint. This left the resident unclear as to how her complaint was being resolved and caused her time and trouble in chasing up the leak in July 2010.
Following the resident’s further complaint in December 2020, the landlord initially appropriately acknowledged the complaint and arranged for its contractor to contact her to informally resolve the complaint by attending to the leak and arranging for the installation of the kitchen.
Following the installation of the kitchen, it is evident that there were ongoing concerns raised by the resident. While the landlord’s complaints policy does not give a specific timeframe for the initial attempt to informally resolve the complaint, given that a number of months elapsed and the complaint case remained open, the landlord should have provided an update as to where the formal complaint stood in its complaints process, which it did not do.
The Ombudsman understands that where a complaint has been ongoing and a large amount of correspondence aimed at resolving the complaint has been issued, it can be appropriate to only issue a single final complaint response. Given the continuous communication between the contractor and the resident, the landlord elected to provide a single final response on 26 February 2021. This response did not however explain why a stage one response had been skipped, which would have caused confusion for the resident.
Following the ongoing concern from the resident and intervention from this service, as noted above, the landlord appropriately offered compensation in relation to its delays and poor communication. It also noted to this service it would consider a payment relating to any costs incurred for making good after the kitchen installation, however, it is not evident whether this has been communicated to the resident. A recommendation has been made below that the landlord contact the resident to advise its position on this issue.
The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord sort to provide further assistance to the resident by agreeing to cover the costs for the reinstallation of the kitchen in a new property. While this stem did not ultimately go ahead, it was appropriate that the landlord sought to provide ongoing assistance. Additionally, while not part of the initial complaint, the Ombudsman also notes the landlord has agreed to install a fire door at the property. It is not evident whether this has been completed, so a further recommendation has been made below to provide an update on this installation if necessary.
In summary, while the landlord took steps following its final response to provide further remedies, it failed to acknowledge (or provide its position) on the resident’s complaint in February 2020. It further failed to provide an update about the stage of the resident’s complaint made in December 2020, or an explanation as to why it would not provide a stage one response. This amounts to service failure in this instance. In the circumstances, an amount of £100 compensation is appropriate to reflect the distress caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaints regarding a leak in the resident’s kitchen and the condensation pipe from the boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports concerning:
1. measurements for an integrated washing machine;
2. damage caused to the resident’s washing machine;
3. additional works required to correct unsafe electrical installations.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its:
1. response to the resident’s reports concerning the disposal of debris;
2. complaints handling.

Reasons

Leaks

Following the resident’s reports of leaks throughout 2020, the landlord failed to acknowledge the reports or arrange repair works. The landlord also failed to address these concerns or demonstrate it had carried out a reasonable investigation as part of its formal response.
Its formal response also ignored the resident’s concerns about additional repairs required to her condensation pipe.
Given the landlord’s failings, it appropriately made an offer of compensation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Washing machine measurements

The resident has advised that the contractor’s operative advised her on what washing machine to purchase, however, the operative has denied this. Given that there was no record of this discussion, and no other document gives any assurances as to what washing machine would fit in the kitchen, the landlord’s conclusion that there was no service failure was reasonable.

Damage to washing machine

As with above, given the lack of evidence, this service is unable to make a determination about what occurred when the contractor’s operative attended to fix the leak. The landlord’s final response that it was unable to find any evidence to suggest the operative had caused the damage was reasonable.

Additional works to kitchen

Following the resident’s reports there were parts missing from the kitchen, the contractor appropriately made enquiries with the builder who advised these were extra works and not missing parts. In the absence of any additional evidence, it was reasonable for the landlord to have found it was not responsible for these costs.
While it may have been the case that the electrical installations required attention, this was for the landlord to determine and so its offer for its electrician to carry out a further inspection prior to providing its position on any payments was reasonable.

Debris

It is not evident that the landlord communicated to the resident who was required to remove the debris, nor is it evident it followed up its verbal conversation with the builder to confirm they had agreed to remove the debris. Given that it had created an expectation it would remove debris by removing the initial debris, its failure to clarify this responsibility amounted to service failure.

Complaints handling

Given the extended amount of time taken for the contractor to attempt to resolve the complaint, the landlord should have clarified its position on providing a stage one response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £150, comprising:
1. £50 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to clarify who was responsible for the removal of debris;
2. £100 for its ineffective complaints handling.
This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination, and include the following:
1. (should it remain outstanding) reiterate its offer of £400 compensation;
2. (should it remain outstanding) an update regarding the installation of a fire door at her property;
3. reiterate its offer for its electrician to inspect the property;
4. confirm that following an inspection, it will advise its position on any reasonable payments relating to the costs for the plumbing work to the condensation pipe, and for making good the kitchen following the installation of the new kitchen, including the costs associated with any necessary electrical work.