Somerset Council (202219254)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219254

Somerset Council

27 February 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:
1. repairs following a kitchen replacement.
2. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bedroom bungalow under a secure tenancy agreement. The landlord has recorded the resident has multiple vulnerabilities.
Prior to the events complained about the landlord carried out a kitchen replacement to the resident’s property, following recommendations from an occupational therapist (OT). The landlord completed the kitchen replacement on 27 May 2023. On 30 May 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. The resident:
1. said the extractor fan the landlord installed stuck out of the ceiling and partly obscured a ceiling light.
2. said there was no off-switch for the extractor fan which caused her sensory issues.
3. complained the landlord did not consult her about installing the extractor fan in the ceiling and the landlord only told her about this when the kitchen replacement was underway.
4. said the landlord had damaged her washing machine during the kitchen refurbishment.
5. raised a further concern, following her complaint on 30 May 2023, that she was not able to access the meter and fuse box easily due to her disabilities and how the landlord had installed this.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 June 2023. In this it:
1. said that it discussed the kitchen plan, including the location of the extractor fan, with the resident before the kitchen refurbishment began. It explained it had installed the extractor fan in the ceiling due to the limited wall space and in a location that would effectively prevent condensation and mould build-up in the kitchen.
2. said it had inspected the property on 5 June 2023. It told the resident it would not replace the fan as the model of extractor fan used was the landlord’s standard specification and it had installed it to an acceptable standard.
3. offered to add a switched fuse connection to the extractor fan so the resident could turn this off, as a reasonable adjustment due to the resident’s reported sensory issues. It asked the resident to contact it if she wanted this further work to be carried out.
4. stated it had removed the cabinet door to the meter and fuse box during the inspection on 5 June 2023 as a temporary repair so the resident could access this more easily. It confirmed it created a repair request to move the meter and fuse box to a more accessible location for the resident.
5. stated it had not seen any visible damage to the washing machine from the completion photographs for the kitchen replacement works. It said its inspection on 5 June 2023 had seen that the front panel of the washing machine was slightly detached and, with the resident’s agreement, it carried out a minor repair that day as a goodwill gesture.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 June 2023. In this she:
1. reiterated the landlord did not consult her about the extractor fan and she wanted it replaced with another of her choice.
2. complained the issues with the meter box and extractor fan were still outstanding and she intended to pay privately to have these changed if the landlord did not do so.
3. stated that the landlord was legally liable for the damage to her washing machine.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 June 2023. In this it:
1. explained that the model of extractor used in the kitchen replacement is the standard specification it uses across its programme of kitchen replacement. It said, as the work was publicly funded, it cannot reasonably design bespoke extractor fans for each property.
2. stated the model of extractor fan that the resident said she wanted was a bathroom extractor fan which would not be appropriate. It warned the resident she would be in breach of her tenancy agreement if she privately arranged for alterations to be made to the property without its consent.
3. confirmed its repairs team would be in contact to arrange an appointment to move the meter and fuse box.
4. said for legal liability the resident would need to prove on the balance of probabilities that the landlord had caused the damage to the washing machine. The landlord said, though it had agreed to make good the minor repair issue, it was not admitting legal liability and it considered its actions were appropriate as investigating liability could have taken several months.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and its decision not to replace the extractor fan. The Ombudsman is aware that since the stage 2 response the landlord has, following further OT recommendations, agreed in January 2024 to replace the extractor fan.

Assessment and findings

Scope

In line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
We have seen that the resident made several complaints to the landlord following the stage 2 response on 22 June 2023, which referred to the extractor fan, but we have not seen that the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedures about these or that she escalated them to the Ombudsman to investigate. Following the landlord’s decision to replace the extractor fan in January 2024 we also have not seen that the resident made any further complaint about the landlord’s handling of this repair.
This investigation therefore considers the resident’s complaint that exhausted the landlord’s complaint process on 22 June 2023. We have referred to events that occurred after the complaints process where they provide context to the outcome of the complaint.
At several points in the complaint to the landlord and the Ombudsman the resident said she considered that the landlord had discriminated against her disabilities in its handling of her complaint. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal judgement which is better suited to a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s complaint as part of our investigation.

The landlord’s handling of repairs following the kitchen replacement

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that:
1. the landlord is responsible for internal and external repairs to the property except where the policy explicitly identifies this as the tenant’s responsibility.
2. it will provide a prompt and effective repairs service to its customers and will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy does not specify a timeframe for non-emergency repairs. The Ombudsman’s expectation is that landlords should complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, the Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive in:
1. communicating the cause of delays to residents.
2. explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays.
3. identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents.
We have seen that prior to the kitchen replacement the OT sent the landlord several recommendations on 21 July 2022 regarding how the kitchen should be adapted to accommodate the resident’s disabilities. The OT recommended that the landlord should move the meter and fuse box from its current position, ideally to the back wall of the kitchen. The OT made no recommendations about the extractor fan or the resident’s sensory needs.
On 3 April 2023 the landlord that it had discussed the planned kitchen replacement with the resident. It said:
1. it had agreed with the resident that the landlord would install a kitchen to its standard specification, except where the resident could provide written evidence that the landlord had agreed to a higher specification.
2. where the landlord was installing standard specification units it would still consider if it could incorporate reasonable adjustments for the resident’s disabilities, in line with its reasonable adjustments policy.
3. it would share the kitchen design with the resident and finalise the details with her before the work began.
There is no record that the resident provided the landlord with evidence that it had agreed to provide her with a higher specification kitchen, other than sending an email on 14 April 2023 referring to the OT’s recommendations from 21 July 2022. On 26 April 2023 the landlord provided the resident with the kitchen plan and summarised the work that it planned to carry out from 9 to 27 May 2023. It also gave the resident an opportunity to raise any further questions. As part of this planned work the landlord said it would:
1. install a ceiling-mounted kitchen fan which would be vented through the roof of the property.
2. box in the meter and fuse box in the lobby area of the kitchen.
From this the landlord’s handling of the installation of the extractor fan, and its decision not to replace it following the resident’s complaint, was reasonable. This is because:
1. the landlord acted in line with the approach it set out on 3 April 2023. It installed its standard specification extractor fan as the OT’s recommendations did not specify that the resident needed an alternative due to her disabilities.
2. the landlord shared the kitchen plan with the resident before work began, as it said it would, and informed her that the extractor fan would be mounted in the ceiling. The landlord gave the resident an opportunity to comment on this and there is no evidence that she raised concerns about this at the time.
3. though the resident objected to the impact of the extractor fan on the light in the kitchen in her complaint, she did not specify why she considered the landlord needed to change it as a reasonable adjustment. The landlord provided a reasonable explanation about why it had decided to install it in the ceiling and in its specific location due to the layout of the kitchen.
The resident said in her complaint that she was concerned the inability to turn the extractor fan off would cause her difficulty sleeping, due to her sensory issues. As set out previously the landlord had not been informed by the OT that the resident’s disabilities caused her sensory issues. Following its inspection on 5 June 2023 it offered to adapt this so that the resident could control the use of the extractor fan through a switch.
This was appropriate, as it was consistent with the landlord’s approach from 3 April 2023 that it would consider reasonable adjustments for the resident where it installed standard specification units. In line with its reasonable adjustment policy the landlord attempted to reach an agreement on what adaptation would be suitable for her needs, though the resident did not reply to this.
We are aware following the landlord’s stage 2 response the resident’s OT made further recommendations to the landlord in January 2024. These recommendations included that the landlord should replace the extractor fan with a smaller model as the shadow cast by it was causing distress to the resident due to her autism. The landlord agreed to replace this in response to the further OT recommendations. Notwithstanding this, at the time of her complaint on 30 May 2023 there is no evidence that the resident disclosed that she had been diagnosed with autism. We also have not seen she had explained in her complaint why the effect the extractor fan had on the light impacted her more than it would a non-disabled person, which the landlord could have considered in line with its reasonable adjustment policy. Therefore, the landlord’s decision not to replace the extractor fan at the time of the resident’s complaint was reasonable.
In relation to the positioning of the meter and fuse box it is unclear from the records provided when the resident first raised her concern that she had difficulty accessing these due to her disability. She did not refer to this in her original complaint of 30 May 2023 but the landlord did address it in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. We have found the action the landlord took to repair this was reasonable for the following reasons:
1. before the kitchen replacement began the landlord told the resident that it would move the meter and fuse box to a wall of the kitchen, in line with the OT’s recommendations, and enclose this in a cupboard. There is no evidence the resident told the landlord this would be unsuitable for her at the time.
2. following the resident’s complaint the landlord inspected the property on 5 June 2023. As part of the inspection it carried out a temporary repair to remove the doors of the cupboard to make it easier for the resident to access, as she told it she could not open the doors easily due to her disability. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take until a long-term solution was found and was carried out promptly after the resident’s initial complaint.
3. the landlord told the resident in its stage 1 response that as she had said she could not reach the fuse and meter box without a step-ladder it would raise a further repair to move these. From the landlord’s repair logs it completed this on 14 July 2023, 29 working days after the landlord’s inspection. Considered against the Ombudsman’s expectations we consider that this was reasonable because:
  1. landlords’ repair policies commonly say they would aim to complete routine repairs in a period of around 20 working days. In this case the nature of the repair would not have been an emergency and was appropriate to treat as a routine repair. As such, a 20 working day timescale would have been in line with how other landlords would have approached this.
  2. though the landlord somewhat exceeded a timescale of 20 working days it kept the resident updated about the planned repair in its formal responses.
  3. it had already taken action to mitigate the impact on the resident through its temporary repair.
The resident told the landlord on 30 May 2023 the front panel of the washing machine was coming away and she was concerned about the safety of it in that condition. On 2 June 2023 the landlord reviewed the completion photographs for the kitchen replacement and said that there was no evidence it had damaged the washing machine. However, it acknowledged it was difficult to identify the damage the resident was reporting from a photograph. It said it should conduct a physical inspection to assess this and whether the landlord may have caused any damage. This was an appropriate response.
The landlord carried out the inspection on 5 June 2023, 3 working days after the resident’s request. It identified during the inspection the front panel of the washing machine was slightly detached, though it was unclear when this had occurred. It agreed to carry out a minor repair to reattach this which was completed on the same day. This was reasonable, as it promptly responded to the resident’s concerns to enable her to use the washing machine again.
From the available records the resident continued to say the landlord had damaged her washing machine and was legally liable but did not provide any evidence of the damage or explain why she was dissatisfied with the repair completed on 5 June 2023. The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 June 2023, following its stage 2 response, that it would not be responding further and she would need to make a legal claim. It provided her with details for its insurance team if she wanted to pursue this. This was a reasonable response.
In summary there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs following the kitchen replacement, in that it:
1. acted consistently with the approach it discussed with the resident on 3 April 2023 in its installation of the extractor fan and repositioning of the meter and fuse box.
2. appropriately considered and offered reasonable adjustments to the extractor fan when the resident said this was affecting her sensory issues.
3. arranged to move the meter and fuse box to a different location within a reasonable timescale when the resident said she had difficulty accessing this. It also promptly completed a temporary repair to mitigate the impact on the resident.
4. appropriately assessed whether there was damage to the washing machine. It took prompt and reasonable action to carry out a minor repair to allay the resident’s concerns.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says that it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of logging the complaint. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the resident escalating the complaint.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint-handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service they provide, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and improvement. The Code was updated in 2024, following the previous version in 2022 that was in place during the time of the events complained about.
The resident originally made her complaint on 30 May 2023. The landlord recorded that it spoke to the resident on 31 May 2023 to agree to conduct an inspection on 5 June 2023. It formally acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 2 June 2023, 3 working days after the complaint. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the expectations of the Code.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 June 2023, 7 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the timescales of the landlord’s policy and the Code.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 June 2023, the landlord acknowledged this on the same day. It issued its stage 2 response on 22 June 2023, 7 working days later. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the timescales of the landlord’s policy and the Code.
Though the resident had disclosed that she was disabled there is no evidence that she requested any reasonable adjustments during the complaint process about how the landlord should have communicated with her. She said in her stage 2 escalation that she was planning to approach an advocacy service. However, she did not provide the landlord with details about this or request the landlord to send further correspondence to it. As such the landlord’s communication with the resident about her complaint was appropriate.
In both the resident’s original complaint and stage 2 escalation the resident raised that she did not consider the landlord was treating her equally due to her disabilities. She said as a result of its handling of the repairs she was intending to refuse entry to the landlord on weekends and would be getting someone to replace the extractor fan privately if the landlord did not agree to do this.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s view that she had not been treated equally in its responses and explained why it considered the repairs it had completed were suitable. It also advised the resident that denying entry to its operatives, where 24 hours notice had been given, or making alterations to the property without its consent would breach the terms of her tenancy agreement. This was appropriate in line with the principles of the Code as the landlord recognised the resident’s claimed impact and was clear with the resident where her desired outcomes were unreasonable.
In summary there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as it responded appropriately in line with its policy and the expectations of the Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs following the kitchen replacement.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.