Plus Dane Housing Group Limited (202123475)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123475

Plus Dane Housing Group Limited

2 May 2023

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 request that it:
1. Renew her kitchen.
2. Install an additional toilet at the property.
3. Complete plasterwork on the ceiling above her stairs.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord whose tenancy began on 18 January 2010. The property is a four bedroom mid terrace house with a brick built outhouse.
The resident’s household consists of seven people. Three of these are children with disabilities.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s website states that it will replace kitchens every 20 years, this being ten years sooner than the government recommendation of every 30 years. It says that its approach to replacing kitchens will depend on budget availability and their current condition, and that the landlord will use stock condition surveys and individual inspections to determine whether replacement is required.
The landlord has an adaptations policy. This says that it will require a formal written assessment from an occupational therapist in order to complete major adaptations. It defines major adaptations as “larger scale changes that may involve structural alterations and typically cost over £1,000”.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that where a repair does not pose an immediate danger or causes limited inconvenience, it will carry out the repair by appointment within 28 days. For major repairs, those requiring more planning, materials and manpower, its target is 90 days.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Its compensation policy says that it may make a discretionary offer of an ex gratia payment, as a gesture of goodwill, as a result of service failure or inaction.

Summary of events

On 5 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to enquire about it renewing the kitchen in the property. She stated that her existing kitchen had previously been inspected and she was waiting for an update.
On 10 August 2021, a contractor of the landlord carried out works to lower the ceiling above the stairs in the property. The contractor did not skim the new lowered surface.
On 11 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to request it arranged for the skimming to be completed. The landlord advised her it would book this in and contact her back.
On 20 August 2021 ,the resident contacted the landlord again to chase up the skimming. The landlord raised a repair and booked the work in for 5 January 2022.
On 25 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to discuss installing a second toilet in her property. She claimed the landlord had removed a toilet from the outhouse prior to her moving in and that one toilet was not sufficient for her family of seven, which included two children with learning difficulties. She stated that the landlord was legally required to provide an extra toilet.
The landlord responded the same day. It signposted the resident to occupational therapy and advised that it would only install a second toilet due to medical need with a supporting occupational therapist’s report.
On 2 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to say she was still waiting for an update on the renewal of her kitchen.
On 14 December 2021, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She expressed dissatisfaction that:
1. She had reported needing a new kitchen three years ago and the landlord had attended to inspect it multiple times but not taken any action.
2. She had been signposted to occupational therapy in order to have an additional toilet installed when there had originally been one in the outhouse, which the landlord had removed.
3. The plasterwork above her stairs had still not been completed, several months after the original contractor had attended to lower the ceiling.
On 20 December 2021, the landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint. It stated it aimed to respond by 13 January 2022.
On 21 December 2021, an operative of the landlord attended to inspect the resident’s kitchen. Internal landlord emails indicate that the operative found the units and cupboards were in “good condition” and that all issues raised by the resident were cosmetic and/or repairable.
On 5 January 2022, the landlord sent an operative to complete the skimming of the lowered ceiling above the stairs.
On 13 January 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to advise that it needed to extend the target date for its complaint response to 20 January 2022, in order to acquire additional information.
On 20 January 2022, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It stated that:
1. The kitchen had been installed in 2014 and inspected during a stock condition survey in 2019. Based on this it was scheduled for renewal in 2030.
2. It had inspected the kitchen again on 21 December 2021 and confirmed it was in functional and repairable condition. It would therefore not be bringing the renewal forwards and all required repairs had been scheduled.
3. It could find no record of a toilet being removed from the property prior to the resident’s tenancy beginning.
4. The provision of only one bathroom was in line with “UK housing standards guidance”, but it would take appropriate action if an occupational therapist supported the request for an additional toilet.
5. Some repairs, such as plastering, were currently taking longer to complete due to lack of availability of materials and resources. It had recently reassessed its timescales for these types of repair and now aimed to complete these within 90 days with customers being made aware of this. The plastering to her ceiling had now been completed.
The resident replied to the stage one complaint response the same day by email. She disputed the kitchen being installed in 2014, saying that it had been present when she moved into the property in 2010. She accused the landlord of having been inconsistent on when the renewal date was, and of carrying out substandard repairs in order to avoid renewing the kitchen.
The resident insisted that there had been a toilet in the outhouse when she viewed the property, although she had not physically seen this due to it being unsafe to go outside at that time. She stated that it was unreasonable to have only one toilet in a four bedroom house and this was causing her anxiety and her family suffering. She also expressed dissatisfaction with the plastering on her ceiling, stating that the landlord had skimmed over loose plaster instead of removing it.
On 27 January 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s continued dissatisfaction and escalated her complaint to stage two of its process. It said it would issue its response by 24 February 2022.
On 8 February 2022, the landlord sent an operative to complete the outstanding repairs to the resident’s kitchen. The repairs were not completed, with the operative recording that the resident “didn’t want repairs to be done” as she was in dispute with the landlord over a new kitchen.
On 24 February 2022, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. The landlord:
1. Apologised for the error in its stage one response and clarified that the 2014 installation date for the kitchen had been an estimate made during the stock condition survey in 2019. It stated that this did not affect its position on the renewal of the kitchen, which had been based on its condition.
2. Advised that it had reviewed the repairs history for the property going back to 2002 and could not find any evidence of a toilet in the outhouse. It stated that where it did have outside toilets in its property stock, it did not routinely replace these. It confirmed that it would not fit an additional toilet without a supporting report from occupational therapy.
3. Apologised for the delays in completing the plasterwork but repeated that these were due to material and resource issues. It said that its operative who completed the work had stated that “everything was left in order”, but invited the resident to contact it if further problems occurred.

Assessment and findings

Kitchen renewal

The resident contacted the landlord on 5 August 2021 to enquire about the kitchen. The landlord advised her at this time that she was not currently on the list for a kitchen replacement but that it would contact her back to discuss further. It failed to do this leading to the resident chasing it up on 2 November 2021. The resident then submitted her formal complaint on 14 December 2021 having still not received a response.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging an updated inspection of the resident’s kitchen. It was reasonable for the landlord to follow the recommendations of two separate inspections, by an independent stock condition surveyor in 2019 and its own operative in 2021, and keep the kitchen renewal date set at 2030. This is in keeping with the process described on its website.
The landlord fulfilled its obligations in sending an operative to the property on 8 February 2022 to complete outstanding repairs to the existing kitchen. Although the resident disputes the operative’s account that she refused repairs, it is reasonable for the landlord to rely on contemporaneous records made by its staff and the resident’s challenge of this account was not made until several months later.
The landlord’s complaint responses at both stages appropriately explained that it would not bring forward the renewal date of the kitchen and the reasons why. However, it failed to acknowledge its service failure in not responding to the resident’s original enquiries over a period of several months, which is what led to her bringing her complaint on this matter.

Additional toilet

When the resident initially contacted the landlord, on 25 October 2021, the landlord responded promptly and appropriately in signposting her to occupational therapy for an assessment and report, as required by its adaptations policy.
On 28 October 2021, after the resident continued to contact it about this matter, the landlord agreed to look into her claim that it had removed a second toilet from the outhouse and update her following this. Although it failed to do so, with the investigation not carried out until stage one of its complaint process, this cannot be said to have caused detriment to the resident as it had already given her appropriate advice and she had confirmed that she had made contact with occupational therapy.
It was reasonable for the landlord to investigate whether the outside toilet was removed from the property immediately prior to the resident moving in. Although the resident’s belief that the toilet was present is not disputed, the fact that she had not physically seen it during her viewing, and that the landlord could find no record of its presence (going back as far as 2002), made it reasonable for the landlord to assume this was not the case.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response advised the resident that the provision of one toilet in the property was in line with housing standards. This is reflected in The Building Regulations (2010) which require “at least one” sanitary convenience in any dwelling. There was therefore no legal requirement for the landlord to install the additional toilet, even if it had removed one from the outhouse.

Landing ceiling plasterwork

The landlord’s stage one complaint response stated that it’s contractor had failed to skim the lowered ceiling surface “as expected”. It was reasonable for the landlord to have expected the contractor to fully make good the surface, and thus not have a separate works order raised in advance.
The resident first contacted the landlord to request the ceiling was skimmed on 11 August 2021, and again on 20 August 2021 when a repair was raised and scheduled for 5 January 2022. The landlord reasonably agreed that this appointment would be brought forward if possible.
The landlord has advised this Service that 5 January 2022 was the soonest available appointment due to shortages of materials and labour as well as the ongoing impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on its service delivery. Although the appointment exceeded its target of 90 days for major repairs, it did not do so to an unreasonable level considering the pressures that landlord repair services were under at this time, as well as the Christmas holiday period.
In her email of 20 January 2022, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the work carried out on 5 January 2022. Although the landlord investigated this as part of its stage two complaint response, it sought only the opinion of the operative who had carried out the work. As the resident had taken issue with the quality of workmanship, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out an inspection of this to ensure it was of the required standard.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request that it renew her kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request that it install an additional toilet at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request that it complete plasterwork on the ceiling above her stairs.

Reasons

The landlord’s decision not to bring forward the renewal of the resident’s kitchen was appropriately made in line with the information published on its website. However, it failed to respond to her initial enquiries about the matter until after she had raised her formal complaint and offered no redress for this.
The landlord appropriately advised the resident to obtain an occupational therapy report, as its policy requires for such an adaptation. Although there were some shortcomings in communication these could not be said to be detrimental to the resident.
The landlord acted appropriately in arranging to complete the work its contractor had not, and the timescale this was completed in was reasonable given the wider context. However, it failed to appropriately investigate and respond to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the work in its stage two complaint response.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £150 compensation composed of:
  1. £75 for the time and trouble caused to her by its service failure in handling her request that it renew her kitchen.
  2. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its service failure in handling her request that it complete plasterwork on the ceiling above her stairs.
2. Apologise to the resident for the service failures identified in this report.
3. Complete an inspection of the relevant plasterwork to determine whether any further works are required.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.