Platform Housing Group Limited (202410878)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410878 and 202411497

Platform Housing Group Limited

22 May 2025

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 the resident’s:
1. Reports about the condition of the kitchen and the request for the kitchen to be replaced.
2. Concerns about the communication method used by the landlord.
3. Reports about the condition of the kitchen flooring.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, and lives in a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord has documented that the resident experiences mental health issues and has a long-standing illness.
The resident submitted 2 distinct complaints to the landlord and subsequently to us; however, the issues and evidence overlap and have been addressed in a single report with the resident’s consent. The background section is divided into the 4 above complaint categories for ease of reading.

Reports about the condition of the kitchen and the request for the kitchen to be replaced

The resident enquired about a new kitchen on 18 March 2024. The landlord responded on the same day explaining that because the kitchen was built in 2011 it was not due to be replaced soon. It offered to carry out repairs on the kitchen. The resident replied the same day, saying that his neighbour’s kitchens had been replaced recently and that repairs were already booked.
On 12 April 2024 the resident expressed dissatisfaction that his email enquiry about a new kitchen had gone unanswered. The landlord responded on 16 April 2024 explaining that the kitchen was not due for a replacement as per its own internal policies. On the same day, the resident informed the landlord that he wanted to make a complaint about the landlord’s decision not to replace the kitchen and the lack of response from the landlord.
The landlord replied on 9 May 2024 at stage 1 of its complaints process. It stated that the kitchen was not due for replacement as it was fitted in 2011 and it could not comment on the resident’s neighbours having new kitchens fitted but there could have been “extenuating circumstances”.
On 9 May 2024 the resident responded, saying he did not agree with the decision and did not think that there were extenuating circumstances for his neighbours. This escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 14 June 2024. In the response, the landlord:
1. Explained that it schedule’s kitchen replacements every 20 years and because of this the resident’s kitchen was due for replacement in 2031.
2. Offered to continue to carry out repairs to the kitchen.
3. Explained why kitchen replacements in 2022 were carried out.
4. Provided information on its schedule for kitchen replacements on the resident’s street, including when other kitchens had been replaced and when others were expected for renewal.
As part of a call to discuss the final review on 14 June 2024, the landlord agreed to carry out further repairs to the kitchen. These were logged on 18 June 2024 and an operative attended the resident’s home on 17 July 2024. There was a dispute between the resident and landlord as to what occurred in this visit, with the landlord saying that the resident refused the repairs and the resident saying that the landlord’s operative said a new kitchen would be required. The resident submitted a separate complaint about this dispute and about the decision not to replace his kitchen.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 31 July 2024 to explain that based on the information provided by the operative from the visit, they were not recommending a kitchen replacement and would not be investigating a new complaint about this as it already had been addressed.
The landlord also reviewed the stage 2 response for this matter as part of a separate stage 2 complaint into the behaviour of their staff on 8 October 2024 (which will not be explored in this report). It arranged for an assessment of the kitchen by a qualified surveyor as part of a relationship rebuilding visit with the resident.
The resident escalated his complaint to us on 15 July 2024 as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to his request for a new kitchen. The complaint became one that we could investigate on 9 November 2024.

The communication method used by the landlord

On 18 April 2024 the resident explained his frustration to the landlord that repair appointments were being made with him via text, not phone calls. He explained that he had requested many times that appointments be made via a call and this had previously been confirmed to him by the landlord. The resident wished to make a formal complaint about this.
On 1 May 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord about his request to be called and not texted for repair appointments. He said he requested it as, due to his disability and health issues, he is not always available for repair appointments and repeating the request for phone call contact was having an impact on his health.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 9 May 2024, explaining that it could only register a contact request like this once an appointment had been requested. It asked the resident to request this each time he reported a repair and apologised if it had given the resident incorrect information in the past. The landlord addressed the resident mentioning his vulnerabilities by saying that it could not offer compensation for this and if the resident wished to pursue a claim, then it would be unable to assist. It signposted to relevant services that could help.
On 9 May 2024, the resident requested his complaint be escalated as he had been told by their staff previously that there were notes on the landlord’s system about calling him about repair appointments.
In its stage 2 complaints response of 14 June 2024 the landlord explained it could not automatically prevent the use of text messages, but it was working on potentially changing this. It said that it had 2 computer systems, and an alert had been created on one to reflect the resident’s wishes but that this information was not transferred over to the other computer system used for scheduling repairs. It asked the resident to request a call each time a repair was reported.
The resident referred his complaint to us on 15 July 2024 as he remained unhappy with the responses of the landlord and the way it was communicating with him. The complaint became one that we could investigate on 9 November 2024.

Reports about the condition of the kitchen flooring.

On 17 and 25 March 2024 the resident complained to the landlord about his kitchen flooring. He reported that the carpet was damaged and the kitchen vinyl had become discoloured.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 April 2024. It said that it was unable to assist with the carpet as it was no longer under warranty and the fund that had supported the acquisition of the carpet no longer worked with any flooring contractors. It apologised for not following up after it recognised that a vinyl floor contractor would be required on 15 February 2023 and organised for an operative to attend the resident’s property on 30 May 2024 to look into the issue.
The resident responded on 18 April 2024 requesting his complaint be escalated as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response, wanted the flooring issues resolved and an increased compensation payment.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 24 May 2024. In its response, the landlord agreed it would fix the carpet and advised that while it was unlikely that the kitchen vinyl flooring would be replaced, it’s operative would make an assessment during the visit scheduled for 30 May 2024. It reiterated its previous offer of compensation as the resident had explained in a call with the landlord he was not seeking financial compensation as a resolution.
The resident escalated his complaint to us on 19 June 2024 as the issues with the kitchen flooring had not been addressed. The complaint became one that we could investigate on 4 November 2024.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

We are aware that the landlord has now agreed to a kitchen replacement after the kitchen sustained damage due to a leak. We will not be looking into this as this was dealt with as a separate complaint by the landlord and so it is not in the scope of this investigation. This report will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of their kitchen and their request for the kitchen to be replaced up until the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 14 June 2024. Events that occurred after 14 June 2024 have been included in the background above for context, but as they are part of separate complaint responses they are not examined in this report.
It is not the objective of this investigation to determine whether the resident’s kitchen requires replacing. Rather, this investigation considers whether the landlord has met its obligations and responded to the resident’s request for a kitchen replacement in a reasonable manner, and taken steps to resolve the complaint, in line with any relevant policies and procedures.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 14 June 2024. When investigating this part of the complaint we have considered events past this date. This is because the repairs that are connected to this complaint response were completed on 9 September 2024. The completed repair is not disputed and we believe it proportionate that this is considered when assessing this situation.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act the landlord has a legal duty to take reasonable steps to avoid any disadvantages presented by a provision, criterion or practice. Although this Service cannot find that a landlord has breached the Equality Act, we can decide whether a landlord has had due regard to its duties under the Equality Act.

Reports about the condition of the kitchen and the request for the kitchen to be replaced

In its Customer Commitments policy the landlord says it will contact residents within 3 working days if it is unable to resolve their query. The landlord responded to the resident’s enquiry about a new kitchen on the same day that it was submitted, 18 March 2024. The resident submitted a follow up enquiry on the same day which was not addressed by the landlord until 16 April 2024. This was 19 working days from the resident’s enquiry, so not appropriate as it was not in line with its policy.
The landlord’s policy on Repairs and Maintenance sets out that there are planned programmes for the renovation of rooms such as kitchens. It updates these programmes on an annual basis and makes them available on request. In its complaint responses to the resident, the landlord explained that it schedules kitchen replacements every 20 years and gave the schedule for kitchen replacements on the resident’s streets. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the kitchen under the tenancy agreement, its repairs and maintenance policy says it will complete appointed repairs within 28 days where possible. The same policy says it is the resident’s responsibility to report repairs.
The resident’s kitchen was fitted in 2011 so according to the landlord’s policies and procedures it was not due for replacement until 2031. Consequently, the landlord declined to replace the resident’s kitchen. It’s stage 2 response of 14 June 2024 explained its future plans for kitchen replacements on the resident’s street. This was a reasonable response and appropriate in the circumstances given the landlord’s policies. It was consistent in its refusal and explained when the resident could expect his kitchen to be replaced.
The landlord did not arrange for an inspection of the kitchen as part of either of its complaint responses. This is in line with its policy as it is the resident’s responsibility to report repairs. The resident did report 4 repairs to his kitchen, on 24 January 2024 (completed in 15 days), 7 March 2024 (completed in 15 days), 18 March 2024 (completed in 25 days) and 17 April 2024 (completed in 9 days). These repairs were not major and were all completed within the landlord’s timescales for repairs and there is no evidence that its operatives who attended to complete these repairs reported that a new kitchen might be necessary. As a result, the landlord’s actions when handling the resident’s kitchen repairs were reasonable within the circumstances.
We note that the landlord did arrange for a surveyor to inspect the kitchen on 5 November 2024 as part of a separate complaint process. The conclusion to this was that a new kitchen was not required.
The landlord’s responses to the resident’s request for a new kitchen and their approach to the associated repairs were reasonable in the circumstances. Though it is recognised that it should have responded to the resident’s enquiry earlier, its responses were consistent and in line with its policies and procedures. We find that there was no maladministration for this element of the resident’s complaint.

The communication method used by the landlord

On 18 April 2024 the resident told the landlord that he had received a text message regarding a repairs appointment, instead of a phone call. The resident informed the landlord this was a regular occurrence, and he had been reassured this would not happen. The landlord’s policy on Reasonable Adjustments says it expects its staff to recognise signs indicating vulnerability and that a request can be made by a colleague identifying and recognising an adjustment would support a customer’s needs. It gives the example of communicating via a method that best suits the customer when listing what adjustment’s it may make.
The resident’s email on 1 May 2024 mentioned his vulnerabilities and the impact that this was having on him. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord explored whether this could be taken as a request for a reasonable adjustment. Under the Equality Act the landlord should be taking reasonable steps to avoid any disadvantages to resident’s and under the landlord’s own policy it should be able to recognise when a potential adjustment might be required. It was a failure of the landlord to not explore this further with the resident and it did not have due regard to its duties under the Equality Act or its own policies on reasonable adjustments.
The landlord’s systems record the resident as having vulnerabilities, but it is not specific on what these are. Its reasonable adjustment policy says that it will “ensure our data capture processes are robust, fit for purpose and collect meaningful data which can support the individual needs of our customers”. It is a failure of the landlord’s record keeping that it did not accurately record the needs of the resident as that could have informed its response in this instance. Under both the Equality Act 2010 and the Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard, the landlord should have taken steps to ensure it understood the residents needs and responded to them.
The landlord’s position was that it was unable to update its second computer system to show the residents request for telephone contact only. It confirmed this in its stage 1 response on 9 May 2024 and its stage 2 response on 14 June 2024. While a request for a reasonable adjustment can still be refused, these responses were not provided when considering a reasonable adjustment. It is not for us to determine whether it would be practical for the landlord to make this adjustment for the resident, but regardless of this the landlord should have considered its responsibilities. Under the Equality Act and its own policies it should have looked into this and made a decision that was communicated to the resident.
In a conversation with us, the resident has said that he did not consider himself to be making a request for a reasonable adjustment to the landlord. This does not change the fact that the landlord should have explored this possibility and considered its duties under the law and its own policies. Sometimes individuals are not aware of the rights they have, and the law puts an obligation on a landlord to help a resident in a situation like this. While it should be noted that there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was or was not aware of his rights, the landlord’s responsibilities remain the same and there is no evidence to suggest it asked the resident whether he was making a request for a reasonable adjustment.
We consider that this did amount to maladministration and therefore the landlord should apologise and pay compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is because this is an ongoing failing which has not yet been addressed by the landlord. It has also not recognised this failing, which has contributed to this finding.
A senior member of staff for the landlord should write to the resident to apologise and explore whether the resident does indeed need a reasonable adjustment based on its policy.
This issue has caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, this can be seen through his communications to the landlord and to us. The situation is unresolved as the landlord has not established whether the resident requires a reasonable adjustment. Because of this, having carefully considered our policy and guidance on remedies, an appropriate level of compensation would be £200.

Reports about the condition of the kitchen flooring

The tenancy agreement says that the landlord will keep in repair internal floors, but it is the tenant’s responsibility to keep the floors covered with an appropriate floor covering. The landlord’s policy on repairs and maintenance states that for appointed repairs it will offer a mutually convenient appointment and, where possible, complete repairs within 28 days.
The resident reported issues with his kitchen vinyl floor covering and the carpet which connects to the vinyl. The evidence shows that the vinyl was damaged by a contractor on 9 February 2023. This was replaced on 26 October 2023 by the landlord, but the replacement became discoloured. The resident also reported that the carpet was loose where it connected to the vinyl. The resident complained to the landlord about this on 17 March 2024. The landlord accepted responsibility for the vinyl in its stage 1 response of 18 April 2024 and carried out repairs on 26 October 2023. The landlord initially did not accept responsibility for the repair of the carpet, but in its stage 2 response of 24 May 2024 it agreed that it would carry out a repair to the carpet as well as the kitchen vinyl.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said that an operative had attended the resident’s property on 15 February 2023 and had noted a vinyl floor contractor would be required. It apologised for not following up on this. The landlord’s repair records show that the vinyl flooring was replaced on 26 October 2023. It is a failure in the landlord’s record keeping that it could not recognise this when completing its complaint response.
The repairs to both the vinyl and carpet were logged as completed on 6 September 2024. This was 173 days from when the resident first reported issues about his kitchen flooring and 105 days from when the landlord accepted responsibility for the kitchen carpet. The repairs were not completed within the landlord’s stated timescales, which was a failure by the landlord.
On 14 and 19 June 2024 the resident informed the landlord that a member of the landlord’s staff had advised him that changing the metal trim where the carpet and vinyl meet would not resolve the issue as the carpet would be too short for this. He explained that he had been told two solutions, either to extend the vinyl or replace the carpet. There is no record of landlord recording this solution or the tenant being informed this.
However, extending the vinyl was the repair that was carried out on 6 September 2024 and the detail provided by the resident in these messages would suggest that someone had informed him of this. This resulted in further delays as a contractor attended the resident’s property on 2 July 2024 and confirmed that the carpet was too short and the vinyl would need replacing. Therefore, we conclude that there were shortcomings in the landlord’s record keeping as these solutions were not recorded internally. This would have assisted it in its communications with the resident and in identifying the solution earlier and so preventing delays.
Though we note that the landlord acted reasonably when it worked to find an alternate contractor after the resident expressed dissatisfaction regarding the contractor it intended to use for these repairs.
The resident has explained in a conversation with this Service that the metal trim is not secured in one place and is sharp in this area. As this is an issue with the quality of the repair, and not with the arranging of the repair, the resident should raise this with the landlord so it can assess whether a further repair is necessary.
The landlord offered the resident £170 compensation in its stage one response on 18 April 2024 and again in its stage 2 response on 24 May 2024. This was broken down into:
- £85 for failure of staff to take reasonable care.
- £85 for time taken to complete repairs.
The delays experienced by the resident were significant, and this caused him distress and inconvenience at having to chase this repair and chase the appropriate solution. Though the vinyl discolouration and loose carpet did not represent a major issue for the resident and his ability to use his kitchen, the landlord should have identified the appropriate repair earlier in its process. We consider that this amounts to maladministration and therefore the landlord should pay the resident an increased amount of compensation to recognise its failures.
Having carefully considered our policy and guidance on remedies, an appropriate level of compensation would be £350. This is because of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays to the repair and the landlord’s failure to arrange the agreed work to the flooring until 173 days after the resident’s initial report. This is a series of service failures and the problem was not resolved in a reasonable timescale.

The landlord’s complaint handling regarding the kitchen flooring

The resident complained on 17 March 2024 about an issue with his kitchen vinyl, following this up on 22 March 2024 and 25 March 2024. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord acknowledged this element of the complaint until it addressed the issue in its stage 1 response on 18 April 2024. This was a failure from the landlord.
The resident complained about the carpet in his kitchen on 25 March 2024, this was acknowledged by the landlord on 4 April 2024. This was 6 working days after the complaint was submitted and not in line with the landlord’s procedures for acknowledging complaints.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response, its acknowledgement of the stage 2 complaint escalation from the resident and the stage 2 response all within its stated procedures for dealing with complaints. This was reasonable from the landlord and in line with its own policies and our Complaint Handling Code.
While the landlord responded to the complaints within its timescales, bar a 1 working delay for the initial acknowledgement, it should have recognised and dealt with the original complaint about the resident’s kitchen vinyl within its policy for recognising and dealing with complaints.
The 1 working day delay did not impact the handling of this complaint. However, the landlord should have dealt with the complaint about the kitchen vinyl in line with its policies. Given this was a 5 working delay up to 25 March 2024, when the landlord stated the complaint had been made, this is not a period of time that had a significant impact on the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling regarding the communication method used by the landlord and the condition of the kitchen and the request for the kitchen to be replaced

The resident submitted a complaint about his kitchen on 16 April 2024 and a complaint about the landlord’s communication with him on 18 April 2024. These complaints were dealt with together and were acknowledged on 29 April 2024. This acknowledgement was provided 9 working days from the kitchen complaint and 7 working days from the communication complaint. This was not in line with the landlord’s procedure for the acknowledgement of complaints.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response, its acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint escalation and its stage 2 response all within its stated timescales. This was appropriate from the landlord and in line with its own procedures and our Complaint Handling Code.
There was some confusion from the resident as to why the landlord mentioned making an insurance claim as part of its stage 1 response. The Code says that a landlord must be clear about which aspects of a complaint is and is not responsible for. While the landlord was trying to do this in its response, it should have included some more context as to why it was stating this in its stage 1 response. This would have meant that it did not have to explain this to the resident in their stage 2 response. Though it should be noted that their response at stage 2 was appropriate in the circumstances.

Summary and conclusions for the landlord’s complaint handling

In summary:
1. There were minor delays in the landlord’s acknowledgement of the resident’s original complaints.
2. The landlord issued all of its complaint responses within the timescales set out in its policies and within the Code.
While there were some failures in the landlord’s complaint handling, relating to recognising and acknowledging complaints within its timescales, we do not find that this amounts to service failure from the landlord. This is because the delays were minor and had a minimal impact on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of resident’s reports about the condition of their kitchen and their request for the kitchen to be replaced.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s communication to the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the repair to the resident’s kitchen flooring.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
1. Paid the resident £350 for the handling of the repair to his kitchen flooring.
2. Paid the resident £200 for the handling of the resident’s request for a different communication method.
3. This is inclusive of the compensation previously offered by the landlord for this element of the complaint. Therefore, the landlord may deduct from this total any compensation it may already have paid in relation to this complaint specifically for this element of the complaint.
4. The payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed. The landlord must provide this Service with confirmation of the payments.
5. Written to the resident to apologise for not recognising a reasonable adjustment request and to explore whether the resident does need a reasonable adjustment. If it concludes that the resident is making a reasonable adjustment request, it should consider whether it is appropriate to grant the request.

Recommendations

The landlord should review our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. This sets out the benefits of good record keeping and provides recommendations for landlords. It should consider whether it needs to review its record keeping procedures and implement any useful changes identified within the report.