Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Places for People Group Limited (202309583)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309583

Places for People Group Limited

26 November 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Request for kitchen repairs.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. At the time of the complaint, the resident was an assured tenant of the property, which is a ground-floor flat owned by the landlord. She has hearing difficulties.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord on 23 February 2023 that kitchen unit kickboards were missing, a drawer front was coming loose, and a door handle was missing from the hallway door. It raised works for this on the same day and further works to fix lino which was lifting in the kitchen on 28 February 2023. It attended these appointments on 2 March and 11 April 2023 respectively but could not access the property.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 12 April 2023 as its operatives had reported no access at both appointments. It raised works and closed the complaint without providing a response. She complained again on 24 May 2023, but it did not log this as a complaint. She complained a third time on 21 July 2023 and on this occasion the landlord logged the complaint.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process on 7 August 2023. It stated that it had identified a service failure in its handling of repairs and apologised for this. It booked an appointment to complete works and offered her compensation of £150.
  5. The resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 14 August 2023. It acknowledged this on 17 August 2023 and provided a stage 2 complaint response on 14 November 2023, after her tenancy had ended. It apologised for its delayed response and for the delays in completing works to replace the kitchen plinths.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and its offer of compensation and brought her complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Within the period of the complaint the resident has reported concerns about an injury sustained in the property. The Ombudsman is not able to make a determination on whether the resident was caused injury by the landlord’s handling of the repairs in her home. Under paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where this Service considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. This type of claim is better suited to the courts as a personal injury claim.
  2. However, the Ombudsman will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to the impact on her health is more appropriate for the courts, and she may wish to seek appropriate advice if she wishes to consider that option.

Kitchen repairs

  1. The landlord provides timeframes for completing repairs within its responsive repairs policy. It defines a “planned repair” as a non-urgent repair which can consist of a replacement, rather than the repair, of a component. It will complete these works within 90 days. It defines an “appointable repair” as a repair that can prevent damage to the property. It will complete these works within 28 days but notes that this is currently 60 days in the policy.
  2. The landlord raised works for various kitchen repairs on 23 February 2023. It booked an appointment for 2 March 2023. It raised further works to repair the resident’s kitchen flooring on 28 February 2023 and booked an appointment for 11 April 2023. It attended both appointments but could not access the property on either occasion. These attempts were within its policy timescales for appointable repairs.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 12 April 2023 about the 2 no access appointments. She stated that she had not received its email advising her of the appointment on 2 March 2023. She then said that she had been home all day on 11 April 2023 and disputed that it had attended. It booked a new appointment for 24 May 2023 and advised her of this. Its records demonstrate that it attended both appointments, so this was an accurate response in the circumstances. However, it did not provide a complaint response.
  4. On 24 May 2023, the landlord attended the property as arranged. It found that it required parts and booked a further appointment with the resident for 17 July 2023. Unfortunately, its supplier did not provide the required parts in time for this, and it rebooked for 24 July 2023. It advised the resident of this and noted that she was unhappy with the further delay. The additional delay of 1 week was outside of its control as it was relying on the supplier to provide parts.
  5. The landlord attended the resident’s property as arranged on 24 July 2023 but there was no access. As this was the basis of her original complaint, it attempted to contact her and the operative that attended between 26 and 28 July 2023. This demonstrated that it was attempting to communicate with her to arrange works.
  6. The landlord successfully contacted the resident on 28 July 2023. She advised it that she was hard of hearing and wondered if operatives were using her disconnected doorbell. She explained that an operative had attended on 24 July 2023, but she was not ready and asked that they returned. A neighbour told her that they did this, but she thought that she may not have heard them. While it would have been helpful for it to remove the old doorbell when it previously disconnected it, the evidence demonstrates that it had told her about the appointments in advance.
  7. On 31 July 2023, the landlord noted that it had completed an online repair request for removal of the old doorbell and various kitchen repairs. It called the resident to book an appointment for 10 August 2023 and emailed the assigned operatives advising them to call her before attending to ensure a successful appointment. This was a positive response to the ongoing issues, and it took prompt action to arrange removal of the old doorbell to avoid future confusion.
  8. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 complaint response on 7 August 2023. It stated that it had provided her with poor customer service in relation to repairs and told her about the appointment on 10 August 2023. It offered compensation of £150 for distress and inconvenience. Despite the delays in repairs being due to the access and supplier issues, it took responsibility for these and made genuine attempts to put things right.
  9. The appointment went ahead as planned on 10 August 2023, during which, the landlord booked a further appointment for 18 August 2023. The resident complained on 15 August 2023 as it had fitted the kitchen kickboards using mastic, and left gaps. She said that one had already fallen. She advised that it had found that her specialist doorbell had not been set up correctly, so this had not been working. It acknowledged escalation of her complaint on 17 August 2023.
  10. The landlord rescheduled the appointment on 18 August 2023 for 23 August 2023 due to staff sickness. It advised the resident of this. On the same day she asked it to cancel all work on her property as she was planning to hand in notice of termination of the tenancy. It noted internally that it was unsure whether she wanted to continue with escalation of her complaint. On 21 August 2023, it cancelled all outstanding repairs as per her request when she formally gave notice of termination. It was good practice for the landlord to wait until receiving formal notice to do this.
  11. On 23 August 2023, the landlord attempted to attend and complete works despite requesting cancellation of these. The resident refused access to the property. It tried to call her on 27 August 2023 to discuss her complaint and followed up with an email requesting contact from her. There is no evidence demonstrating that she contacted it any further prior to contacting this Service. Its efforts to communicate with her were reasonable and varied in method.
  12. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 14 November 2023. It apologised for the delay in doing so. It had spoken with her prior to responding and she had advised that she was seeking further compensation. It declined this as it felt its original offer was fair and stated that she had accepted this. It said that it had seen photographs of the kitchen plinths and felt that it had completed the repairs to an acceptable standard. It explained that the batteries had not been placed in the new doorbell correctly which is why it had not been working and that it had removed her old doorbell. It then stated that it had cancelled all outstanding repairs following her request.
  13. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for payments up to £250 for service failures where it has failed to meet service standards for actions and responses. Its decision not to make a further offer at stage 2 was fair and in line with this policy. While unfortunate that an error had been made with installation of the doorbell, it acknowledged this and its prior actions to rectify the issue. Overall, its response was fair and reasonable.
  14. In conclusion, the landlord informed the resident of each appointment ahead of time. It attended each appointment in good faith and within the time periods set out in its responsive repairs policy after raising works. As soon as it became apparent that there may have been an issue with the doorbell, it worked promptly to rectify this. When she asked it to cancel works, it waited a few days before doing so and the evidence provided demonstrates that it worked diligently to communicate with her. As such, this Service concludes that the landlord dealt appropriately with this element of her complaint.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge complaints at both stage 1 and stage 2 within 5 working days of receipt. It will then respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of receipt and stage 2 within 20 working days of receipt. At both stages, if it needs to extend the complaint period, it will advise a complainant of this and the reasons why.
  2. When the resident complained on 12 April 2023, the landlord acknowledged this promptly but did not provide her with a complaint response. This was not in line with its complaints policy, or the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) published by the Ombudsman, in which it states that landlords must respond to a complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days of logging the complaint.
  3. The resident made a clear request to escalate her complaint on 24 and 25 May 2023. The landlord approached this poorly by asking why she felt her complaint was at stage 2 and whether she was requesting escalation of her complaint to stage 1. She did not respond to this question, but it made no effort to log her complaint as it should have done.
  4. The resident again requested escalation of her complaint on 17 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 21 July 2023 and responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 7 August 2023. Its response was compliant with the Code and explained how she could escalate her complaint to stage 2.
  5. On 17 August 2023, the resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2. It phoned her to discuss this, and she became upset. She advised it that she had already approached the Ombudsman, and it closed her complaint instead of escalating it. Further communications took place between them and the landlord appeared confused about whether she wanted to escalate her complaint as she decided to accept its compensation offer at stage 1. Following intervention from this Service, it reopened her complaint on 2 October 2023 and sent acknowledgement of this to the resident.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 14 November 2023. It apologised for the delay in providing its complaint response. It had agreed an extension with her, and it sent its response 31 working days after acknowledgement, so the delay was not excessive. However, it missed multiple opportunities to open and respond to her complaint effectively between April and July 2023, then again failed to appropriately escalate her complaint in August 2023, neither of which it apologised for.
  7. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was poor and while it offered reasonable redress for the repairs, it failed to offer any form of sufficient redress for its handling of her complaint such as an apology, explanation for the issues or compensation. As such an order for financial redress will be made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
    1. There was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for kitchen repairs.
    2. There was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation totalling £75 for the failures identified in its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord must write to the resident, acknowledging and apologising for its failures in the handling of her complaint.
  3. The landlord must provide proof of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. This Service recommends that the landlord pays the resident the previously offered compensation amount of £150, if it has not done so already.

 

 

 

 

Chat to us