Platform Housing Group Limited (202114713)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114713

Platform Housing Group Limited

17 January 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:
1. handling of the kitchen replacement.
2. handling of repairs to the toilet flush.
3. response to the resident’s concerns about contaminated drinking water.
4. communication, complaint handling and offer of compensation.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord’s property – a two-bedroom bungalow – since 18 November 2019.
The resident complained about the time taken for the landlord to replace the kitchen. He was also concerned that he was to remain living at the property whilst the replacement kitchen was installed. The resident had a number of concerns about other repairs within the property, and was also unhappy with how the landlord was responding to his complaints.
Within its final response letter, the landlord apologised for the delay in carrying out the kitchen replacement. It also offered to meet with the resident so that it could provide him with some reassurance about the works and how they would be carried out. The kitchen replacement work subsequently took place in late November 2021.
When the landlord issued its final response to the complaint, it apologised for the issues the resident had experienced in reporting repairs through the online portal. It also advised of the steps it had taken to prevent a recurrence. With regards to the repairs, the landlord offered to revisit the resident’s property with an inspector to formally record and agree on any outstanding repairs. Regarding complaints handling, the landlord apologised for errors in passing complaints to incorrect teams, delays in response and lack of communication. Feedback had been provided to the relevant managers to ensure the correct process is followed.
The landlord offered an overall compensation amount of £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused. This was declined by the resident, as he did not believe that it was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience that he had experienced.

Scope

In email correspondence sent to the Ombudsman, the resident agreed with the complaints listed above but also raised some additional aspects concerning repairs and the kitchen replacement including:
1. The time taken by the landlord to move the grab handles for the bath and toilet.
2. That whilst replacing the kitchen the landlord’s contractor damaged pipes and did not install sink plumbing straight which caused several floods of the kitchen.
3. The time taken by the landlord to connect the gas when he moved into the property and that the electricity supply was insufficient for the electrical appliances needed.
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
The resident has also advised the Ombudsman that other bungalows have the same problems which remain unresolved by the landlord. This investigation can only consider the resident’s complaints and is unable to extend its consideration to the complaints of other residents. However, if other residents wished to pursue complaints with the landlord and the Ombudsman then they could do so.
In addition, there were other complaints raised and addressed during the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. However, this investigation focuses on those matters which the resident considered were unresolved by the landlord and which he decided to raise with the Ombudsman. Accordingly, this investigation has focussed on and assessed the circumstances of the issues that the resident considers remain outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Kitchen replacement

The landlord has a planned programme to replace components such as kitchens and the timing of replacements are agreed annually. Unlike responsive repairs, the timescales for carrying out and completing such works are not detailed within a landlord’s repairs policy or handbook. Rather, the timescales are agreed with the resident once the works are confirmed, and may vary according to the work that is required.
As detailed above, the kitchen design appointment took place on 9 December 2020. It is noted that the resident’s understanding was that the kitchen would be fitted in January 2021. While the resident’s comments are noted, this Service has not seen any contemporaneous evidence which shows that this is what had been agreed. Within the landlord’s internal notes, the technical officer who designed the kitchen advised that the kitchen was to be replaced “in this year’s programme”. As such, the evidence does not suggest that a specific start date had been agreed.
The evidence that is available shows that the kitchen was initially inspected in January 2020. As a result of this, it was decided that the kitchen upgrade was needed “sooner”. The property was therefore placed on the programme for 2020. Based on this, the resident’s expectations that the kitchen works would take place sooner than they did are understood. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had provided the resident with a target date for the works to commence, and that it failed to meet this.
When the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in July 2021 it confirmed that the planned works could not proceed in 2020 owing to the outbreak of Covid-19. Once the programme re-started, an appointment took place at the property in December 2020 to design the kitchen. A contractor had been in place at that time but due to resource issues, it was no longer able to complete work within the timescales that the landlord asked for. The landlord therefore ended this contract and found another contractor. It had “recently” sent across the work to the new contractor, and the resident’s kitchen was to be replaced as a high priority.
It is acknowledged that following the outbreak of the pandemic in March 2020, only emergency repairs were permitted until restrictions were lessened in June 2020. It is also noted that it may not have been possible for the landlord to resume planned work immediately after the restrictions were eased. However, it is unclear why the landlord did not update the resident or explain the situation regarding the change in contractor prior to July 2021.
As detailed above, the resident had been informed in January 2020 that it would be necessary to replace the kitchen “soon”. The replacement was not completed until November 2021. It is acknowledged that the outbreak of Covid-19 delayed the commencement of any works in the following months. However, after the design meeting in December 2020, the resident received no communication about when the works would begin.
In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to keep the resident updated following the design meeting. That it did not, was a failing in the landlord’s handling of the replacement works. It is noted that the landlord may not have been able to provide a timescale for when the works were likely to commence. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident that while the kitchen upgrade remained on the programme for 2021, it was in the process of finding a new contractor. Taking such steps would have reassured the resident that the landlord was aware that the works were outstanding, and that it was taking steps towards ensuring that they could be completed.
During the course of his complaint, the resident also raised concerns about the disruption that would be caused by the kitchen installation. He was also concerned that he was to remain in the property while the works were undertaken. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about potential upheaval in its final response letter. Within this, it advised that it was not its usual policy to move residents out while a kitchen replacement was underway. However, it would carry out a “full review” to assess the resident’s support needs while the works were undertaken. The landlord added that it had offered a meeting with the contractor, a member of the delivery team and a neighbourhood officer about how the kitchen would be replaced. It was hoped that the meeting would help to provide the resident with some reassurance. The resident suggested being able to access the community centre during these works and this was to be discussed at that meeting. However, the resident had declined the offer and asked for the kitchen replacement be cancelled.
The resident’s concerns about the potential upheaval that would be caused while the kitchen works were undertaken are understood. However, there is no obligation on a landlord to decant, or temporarily move, a resident from a property while improvement or major works are being undertaken. Where major works are required, a landlord should consider whether they can take place with the resident(s) in situ, and source appropriate alternative accommodation if not. The landlord’s offer to discuss the works and how they would be undertaken was a proportionate and pragmatic response in the circumstances.

Repairs – toilet flush

On 25 March, the resident reported that the toilet within the property was not flushing properly. He said he had to press the handle a few times for the toilet to fully flush. An appointment was arranged for the landlord to attend on 23 April 2021. It is understood that the resident was unhappy with the level of priority that the landlord assigned to the repair.
The landlord provides two categories of responsive repair – emergency ad appointed. The landlord’s repairs policy provides examples of emergency repairs. This includes where there is an immediate and serious risk to people or property – for example, a total loss of power or severe water leak. All other non-emergency and non-specialist repairs are categorised as appointed repairs. Where appointed repairs are concerned, the resident should be offered a mutually convenient appointment at the first point of contact where possible.
While the resident’s dissatisfaction with the categorisation is noted, the repair report indicated that the toilet did flush if the handle was pressed a few times. As such, it could still be used. The repair therefore did not meet the criteria for an “emergency repair”, and the landlord’s categorisation was in line with its policy.
On 23 April 2021 the operative attended outside of the agreed time slot. The resident had left the property already, to attend a hospital appointment, and was therefore not available to provide access. The landlord subsequently rearranged the repair for 2 July; however, the resident was unable to accept this as he already had a medical appointment scheduled for that day.
When the landlord issued its initial response to the complaint on 20 July 2021, it apologised that the operative was late for the appointment that had been scheduled for 23 April 2021. It advised that in such instances, its planning team should call residents to keep them updated. Feedback had been provided to the planning team, as this had not happened on that occasion. The landlord noted that following the resident’s contact, an appointment was looked into for the following week but the resident declined the visit. Another appointment was arranged for 2 July 2021 but the resident cancelled this appointment as he was unavailable. The landlord reiterated a previous offer made in May (which the resident had declined) to inspect and assess all issues including previous work and raise repairs accurately.
In response to the resident’s query about having the repairs completed privately, the landlord advised that it could allow for this. However, it was not its preferred approach. As the toilet flush had yet to be repaired, the landlord advised it could raise a further job for its contractors to attend as soon as possible and asked the resident to contact the customer services team.
It is acknowledged that the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, and that he wished for an independent inspection to take place. While the resident’s concerns are acknowledged, the landlord’s response at this time was appropriate. It acknowledged that there had been shortcomings in the repairs service. In addition, the options that it provided the resident with were proportionate in the circumstances, and would have helped to put things right.
Following this, the landlord raised a further repair appointment for 7 October. However, this was cancelled as the resident was unhappy with the situation and how other repairs within the property had been handled.
When the landlord issued its final response to the complaint on 13 October, it once again acknowledged that the operative had attended outside the allotted appointment time on 23 April. However, it noted that all subsequent appointments had been declined, and the repair remained outstanding as a result. The resident had requested to use his own contractors, and it had been agreed on that occasion. The landlord would pay what it would cost to complete the repair itself. However, it would still need to revisit the property to establish what works were required, and the estimated costs. Unfortunately the resident did not wish for such an inspection to go ahead, as it had declined to cover the full costs of any work undertaken privately. The offer to carry out the inspection remained; however, at that time the repair remained on hold at the resident’s request.
The landlord’s response was appropriate. It is noted that the resident was frustrated by the repairs portal – which will be addressed later in the report. However, the evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord continued to offer to carry out the repair itself. As the resident had declined, the landlord provided the resident with options to try to resolve the situation and these were reasonable in the circumstances. There is no obligation on the landlord to allow resident’s to use their own contractor, or to have repairs carried out privately. However, the landlord considered the resident’s request and advised of the circumstances within which it would permit the resident to use his own contractors. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for carrying out certain repairs within and outside the property. It was therefore not unreasonable for the landlord to advise that it would need to inspect the area first, and that it would only reimburse the resident what it would cost to carry out the repair itself.
Following further discussions between the landlord and resident, they agreed that outstanding repairs would be completed by the contractor at the same time as the kitchen replacement. The contractor and housing management met with the resident at his property on 25 October 2021 to review repairs needed, and the kitchen installation was completed towards the end of 2021.
However, the toilet flush repair remained outstanding, and the resident chased this again in February 2022. The repair was subsequently completed in March 2022. It is noted that additional repairs were required within the property at the time of the kitchen installation, and in the immediate aftermath. However, from the evidence that is available it is unclear why the toilet flush was not repaired towards the end of 2021 when the kitchen installation was completed. The landlord had acknowledged within the final response letter in October 2021 that the flush repair was considered “urgent”. As such, it would have been reasonable for the repair to be completed without any further delay. The Ombudsman cannot speculate about the reasons for the delay; however, that the repair was delayed was inappropriate. The landlord should now apologise to the resident for the inconvenience that was caused between October 2021 and March 2022. The Ombudsman has also made an order of compensation aimed at putting things right.

Repairs – contaminated drinking water

In correspondence to this Service in September 2021, the resident advised that the pipework within the property did not confirm to regulations, and that the water supply had been contaminated for approximately two years. Within other correspondence, the resident had referred to “black goo” coming out of the kitchen taps. The resident expressed concern that the landlord was aware of the situation, but had not taken any action. He added that as a result, they had been buying bottled water for a prolonged period.
The resident’s comments are not disputed. However, it is unclear when the resident’s concerns were first raised with the landlord. On 13 August 2021, the Council’s Housing Standards Officer (the officer) visited the property in response to numerous concerns that had been raised by the resident. On 20 September, the officer wrote to the resident to confirm that he had written to the landlord about outstanding repairs within the property. This included the resident’s concerns about the drinking water quality, and that the pipe fitting serving the washing machine did not meet water supply regulations. It should be noted that the officer did not make any findings or draw any conclusions during his visit; rather, he wrote to the landlord to relay the concerns that the resident had raised.
On 23 September 2021 the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the outstanding repairs at the property. It is unclear whether the resident’s concerns about the drinking water were discussed during this conversation; however, it is noted that the landlord had proposed a visit to the property so that all issues could be discussed or inspected.
Within the landlord’s repair records, a job was raised on 28 September 2021 in relation to the water and pipes within the property. It was noted that the pipe were making noise, and that the resident was concerned about the quality of the water supply. However, the repair was recorded as abandoned on 30 September 2021 as the resident stated in a webchat that he wanted to cancel all repairs. This was owing to his frustration with how other repairs within the property were being handled. This is the only entry relating to the water supply within the landlord’s repair records. As such, the Ombudsman has not been provided with any clear evidence demonstrating that the landlord was aware that there was potentially a problem with the drinking water at the property prior to September 2021.
Within the final response letter of 13 October 2021, the landlord noted that the resident had concerns about the drinking water, and that the matter was considered urgent. However, despite this, it is unclear what action was taken by the landlord. Given the resident’s concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to conduct an investigation and confirm whether there was a problem with the drinking water supply.
It is acknowledged that between July and October 2021 the resident did not wish for appointments to go ahead. However, given the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to try to ascertain whether there was a problem with the drinking water supply. On the basis of the information that is available, it is unclear whether there was a problem with the water supply, what the problem was deemed to be and what action was taken to rectify this. As the issue had been raised by the resident as part of his formal complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed this specifically once the kitchen works were complete. That the landlord did not address this was a failing in its handling of the matter. In addition, the resident had also stated that he wished to compensated for buying bottled water. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made further enquiries with the resident about this, and to consider whether reimbursement was due. That the landlord did not take such action was a failing on its behalf, and a missed opportunity to try to put things right.

Communication, complaints handling and compensation

Throughout the course of his complaint, the resident expressed concern that details relating to the repairs that he was reporting were not being recorded correctly, and that this was frustrating the process of having them completed. The resident also expressed concern about the landlord’s portal for logging repairs and that it was not working correctly.
In response, the landlord apologised for errors that had been made when the resident had reported repairs over the telephone. It advised that the feedback had been provided to the relevant team so that advisors could ensure that they were obtaining as much information as possible during a call to prevent jobs being raised incorrectly.
It is understood that the issues which the resident experienced would have been the cause of frustration and concern. However, the landlord’s response was proportionate in the circumstances.
With regards to the repairs on the portal, the landlord acknowledged that there were some issues – including that completed repairs were showing as active. It explained that this would be addressed during an update, and it was hoped that the update would prevent similar issues reoccurring. The landlord added that it could look into any repairs issues that the resident felt had been logged incorrectly.
In correspondence to this Service, the landlord has acknowledged that the customer portal required improvement. It advised that this would be completed as part of an ongoing development project. It is noted that the resident was inconvenienced as a result of the portal not functioning correctly. However, the steps that the landlord has taken – and intends to take – with regards to the ongoing development of the portal should help to alleviate the issues that the resident had experienced.
The evidence provided to this Service does not demonstrate that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was appropriate, or in line with its policy and procedure. The landlord’s complaints procedure states that a complaint should be acknowledged within three working days. The investigation of the complaint should be completed within ten working days and if more time is needed, the landlord will keep the complainant updated. If the resident is unhappy with the outcome of the initial investigation, they may ask for a final review. The final review should be issued within 20 working days of the request being accepted.
When the landlord issued its initial investigation response, it acknowledged that the resident had first asked for a complaint to be raised on 23 April 2021. However, due to a new system and user error, this complaint was logged incorrectly so was never received. The resident’s subsequent chasers were then sent to the wrong team. The landlord apologised for the errors, the delay in receiving a response and for the lack of communication. The landlord advised this had been fed back to the duty manager team, to ensure the correct process is followed so that complaint responses are within the correct timescales.
It was appropriate that the landlord apologise for the errors made in logging the complaints. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles note that it is important that the landlord looks beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and considers whether anything needs to be ‘put right’ in terms of wider processes. A landlord should consider what it could do to reduce the likelihood of a similar situation arising in the future for other residents. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord ensure the correct process was being followed by staff. It was also appropriate that the landlord acknowledged that its portal needed improvements.
In addition to apologising, the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience he had been caused. The landlord does have a compensation policy, and a guide to compensation payments. However, neither of these documents has a tariff, and landlord staff are asked to consider the individual circumstances of a complaint when making an offer of compensation. The Ombudsman has considered the offer that was made, and given the issues that the resident experienced both with logging repairs and his complaint, it does not appear to be proportionate in the circumstances.
It is also acknowledged that the final review was issued approximately three months after the initial investigation response – and that this was a significant departure from the timescales detailed in the landlord’s policy. It is noted that the landlord was trying to resolve the outstanding repair issues during this period, and that the resident was unwilling to engage at one time. However, given the policy, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident in August 2021 that the final review would be delayed. Alternatively, the landlord could have considered issuing the final review in August based on the situation at the time. The decision to delay issuing the final review was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy and was not appropriate in the circumstances.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure by the landlord in its communication about the kitchen replacement.
2. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the toilet flush repair.
3. Maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about drinking water contamination.
4. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its communication and complaint handling.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings that have been identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident a total of £750 compensation, comprised of:
  1. The £100 that was offered during the course of the complaints procedure, if not previously accepted.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the lack of communication relating to the kitchen replacement.
  3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the toilet flush repair, and its response to the resident’s concerns about the drinking water.
  4. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about the drinking water supply.
  5. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its communication and complaint handling.
3. Write to the resident and this Service to confirm whether it tested the drinking water at the property, and whether it was contaminated. If any issues were identified, the landlord should confirm when these were resolved.
The landlord should consider reimbursing the resident for the costs incurred in purchasing bottled water. This is dependent upon the resident evidencing his costs through itemised receipts. The resident should ensure that the landlord is provided with any receipts within four weeks of the date of this determination. Once the landlord had received the receipts, it should confirm within a further four weeks what costs will be reimbursed.