South Holland District Council (202111751)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111751

South Holland District Council

29 November 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s kitchen adaptation works.
2. The resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives in a 3-bedroom, semi-detached house and has been a secure tenant of the landlord since September 2010.
The resident’s household consists of 2 adults and 4 children. The family have disabilities, including mobility issues.
In January 2020 the resident’s occupational therapist advised the landlord that it would need to carry out adaptations to the kitchen. These included extending the kitchen to create sufficient space for potential wheelchair use in the future and other works which included a rise/fall sink and a pull out/down baskets in units.
The kitchen adaptations formed part of larger adaptations works in the resident’s home. Although the larger works started in April 2021, it is not clear from the evidence that is available when the adaptation works to the kitchen started. The evidence suggests that the kitchen works started soon after the larger works.
On 18 August 2021 the resident asked the landlord how she could make a formal complaint about the adaptations to her kitchen. She explained that she had emailed many times to express her stresses and worries, which had been either “ignored or brushed off”. She stated that she had been without a kitchen for 5 weeks, and no works had been carried out in the past 2 weeks. The kitchen had been completely ripped out which had put a financial strain on her family in the summer holidays. The communication had been poor and the process had affected her mental health. As a result she had booked a caravan for her family to stay in.
The landlord’s housing officer confirmed in internal correspondence that he had explained to the resident that the delays may be due to COVID-19. He explained that the resident’s main concern was that she did not have a schedule of works and did not know when the work would be completed.
On 20 August 2021 the landlord’s surveyor confirmed in internal correspondence, that he had visited the resident and the contractor. He confirmed with the resident that the contractor would return on 23 August 2021. The surveyor also confirmed that he explained to the resident that he would be happy to receive daily emails from her to monitor the contractor’s attendance.
On 1 September 2021 the resident asked the landlord for an update on her complaint. She explained that the kitchen works had not progressed much and she was regularly updating the landlord’s surveyor. She reiterated that she still did not have a kitchen or sink, which impacted her financially and emotionally.
The resident chased the matter again on 20 September 2021. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on the same day. Internal correspondence exchanged by landlord staff noted that the response was overdue.
On 13 October 2021 the landlord issued its stage 1 response, which stated the following:
1. It acknowledged that the service the resident received had not met its standard. It had met with its contractor and the work was estimated to be completed by the end of October 2021. The contractor had agreed to add more operatives so the work could be completed on time. It stated that the date was subject to issues with accessing the resident’s home, “going forward” and no further cases of COVID-19 in the household.
2. It applied principles from its decant policy and offered the resident £280 in supermarket vouchers in recognition of the increased in food costs she had experienced. It advised that it would look to compensate her further for the inconvenience that she had experienced once the work had been completed. In addition to the compensation, it also offered to decorate the resident’s extension and install flooring in the room.
3. It advised that one of its senior service managers would monitor the works.
The resident acknowledged the landlord’s response and explained that she had received £200 supermarket vouchers the previous month, and wished to know if the offer of £280 worth of vouchers was in addition to this. It is unclear whether the landlord responded.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord carried out further works between 13 and 21 October 2021. However, it is unclear what those works entailed, from the evidence provided.
On 21 October 2021 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 stating the following:
1. The kitchen cupboards were too high and there were no suitable drawers. The resident stated her family’s needs should have been considered in the design of the kitchen. Such as, whether they needed to use a wheelchair in the future and the placement of the appliances.
2. There were outstanding issues; the worktops were not connected properly and some were water damaged. The kitchen sink was not sealed and the kitchen plastering was not done properly.
3. She had reported a leak in July 2021. While this had been resolved, there was now black mould behind the cooker. The contractor had failed to clean this; and the hob and electrics had only just been installed and ready to use on 20 October 2021.
4. The family had been left feeling that they were insignificant and had not been taking seriously. The work was still incomplete and she was unsure when the landlord would finish it. She did not trust the process and the issues had caused her mental health to suffer.
On the same day, the landlord’s internal correspondence shows that it arranged to visit the resident. The Service does not have evidence of the outcome of this visit or if it went ahead. However, within the internal correspondence, staff explained that the project had overrun, which meant that the resident went without a kitchen for 7 weeks. The resident had to eat “ping” meals and wash up in the bath.
The Ombudsman has not been provided with the full correspondence between the landlord and its contractor at this time. However, on 25 October 2021, the contractor explained to the landlord that the start date for the works had moved by 3 days which meant that the operatives had been rebooked as they had started other projects elsewhere. Two further COVID-19 outbreaks had also stunted its progress. It explained that the kitchen had been installed, however the resident had raised concerns about the accessibility of the kitchen.
On 27 October 2021 the resident raised concerns that the placement of the microwave in the kitchen still needed to be lowered, as her and her family could not reach it due to their disabilities. She reiterated that the general design of the kitchen did not take into consideration the household disabilities, and the placement of the fridge-freezer was not mobility friendly. Meanwhile, the landlord noted the concerns that had been raised by the resident and considered that it would be necessary to consult her occupational therapist.
On 23 November 2021 the resident expressed concern that:
1. There were chips in the worktop.
2. The wrong cupboard doors had been fitted for the integrated appliances.
3. No one had attended recently to carry out any work.
On 30 November 2021 the resident’s occupational therapist recommended further work to the kitchen which included installing drop down baskets, moving the microwave, and replacing or relocating the fridge-freezer. On 1 December 2021 the contractor confirmed the work had been completed and was ready for snagging.
On 17 December 2021 the landlord confirmed in its internal correspondence that it had visited the resident’s home and identified several “small” issues which the contractors had agreed to rectify. The landlord confirmed that it had spoken to the resident and most of the issues had already been resolved. The landlord had agreed to purchase and relocate the fridge-freezer and would carry out another inspection in the new year.
It is unclear what transpired immediately following this. However, on 4 February 2022 the landlord noted internally that some of the occupational therapist’s November 2021 recommendations remained outstanding. It advised that the works would be completed by the end of March 2022.
On 23 March 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 response, which stated the following:
1. It apologised for the delay in its response and that the experience the resident had encountered had not met its standards.
2. It acknowledged that there were outstanding works, such as fitting the dropdown baskets and the replacement of a corner unit.
3. It explained that it had offered the resident supermarket vouchers to provide support with the additional food costs in recognition that the resident was without a kitchen at that time.
4. It also offered to redecorate and install the flooring in the resident’s extension. It had also offered the resident a new fridge–freezer in recognition of the fact that the kitchen design had not taken into consideration the resident’s existing appliances. It offered a further £500 for its poor level of service.
5. It stated that it had reviewed its aids and adaptation delivery process. It would be advertising for a new contractor to deliver improvements which included customer experience and apologised for the resident’s experience.
The drop down baskets were installed in June 2022. However, the resident remained concerned that the kitchen design was still not suitable for her and her family’s needs.
In March 2023 the resident informed this Service that the landlord failed to install ventilation in the kitchen, which had resulted in damp and mould that had negatively affected her due to her respiratory condition. It is understood that the damp and mould issues have been dealt with via a separate complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord receives grant funding from the local authority to carry out adaptations so that its residents can remain living independently in their properties, as confirmed by the landlord’s Housing Assistance policy.
At the time of the complaint the landlord’s Complaint policy stated:
1. an officer from the relevant service would be assigned to deal with the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and respond to the resident within 15 working days. If the response took longer, it would keep the resident updated on its actions and the progress that it had made.
2. the resident is able to escalate their complaint to stage 2 where a senior member of the landlord would respond to their complaint within 20 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s kitchen adaptation works

The landlord’s records do not clearly set out when the kitchen adaptation works commenced. It would be reasonable for the landlord to ensure that it keeps a clear and accurate audit trail of all works and repairs undertaken within its properties. The details recorded should include the nature of the works, the date they commenced, the date of completion, whether a follow-up inspection or follow-on works were required. Not only would this enable the landlord to assess its own performance, but it would also enable an independent service such as the Ombudsman to assess its handling of matters in the event of a complaint. That the landlord has not recorded the date on which the works commenced is poor and a record keeping failure.
When the resident raised her concerns about the lack of progress in relation to the works, the landlord arranged to attend the property, which was reasonable. The visit took place promptly and the landlord explained that the works would start again in 3 days. The surveyor also provided the resident with his contact details, so that she had a point of contact while the matter was ongoing, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
However, there is no record of the outcome of the visit beyond that. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated the reasons for the delay to ascertain if they were unavoidable, and whether it needed to take any steps to put things right with the resident. It would have also allowed the landlord to consider what had gone wrong, and what action it needed to take to prevent a reoccurrence of such an issue. That the landlord did not take such action was a missed opportunity. It would have also been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with an explanation as to why the works had not progressed in those previous 2 weeks, and why she had been without a kitchen for 7 weeks at that time. This would have demonstrated that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and was taking control of the matter.
The resident stated in September 2021, that although she was updating the landlord regularly, the kitchen works had not progressed much. The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord responded to the resident at this time. This was inappropriate, and the resident was left to chase the matter as a result. In addition, the evidence does not show that the landlord was proactive in monitoring the works or that it took any steps to manage the contractor’s performance. This is something that it should have reasonably done, given the issues that had occurred in August. The Ombudsman encourages that both landlords and residents to work together to achieve agreed ends. In any event, the resident’s updates should not replace the landlord’s responsibility to manage its contractor’s performance. It should have taken a proactive approach. This would have reduced its reliance on the resident and would have given a more comprehensive structure and plan for its contractors to follow.
The landlord offered the resident £280 supermarket vouchers as part of its stage 1 complaint response in October 2021. It is noted that it also gave the resident £200 supermarket vouchers the previous month. The landlord stated it had issued the supermarket vouchers based on its decant policy principles. We have not had sight of the landlord’s decant policy as part of this investigation; but it was reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident vouchers in the circumstances. However, the resident was without a fully functional kitchen for approximately 3 months at this point, and it is unclear if the offer of supermarket vouchers adequately covered this period.
The landlord stated that it would also decorate the resident’s extension and lay the flooring in that room in recognition of the inconvenience the delay in completing the kitchen works had caused. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it had spoken to the resident beforehand to discuss its offer. It is also unclear how it decided that that the offer was fair and proportionate in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s contractor stated at the end of October 2021 that the kitchen had been installed. However, the resident raised her concerns soon after stating that the kitchen design and placement of some of her appliances were not mobility friendly. The landlord appropriately sought guidance from the occupational therapist. However, this was approximately one month after the resident raised her concerns. The reasons for the delay are unclear.
The occupational therapist made some further recommendations in November 2021. However, it is noted that some of the recommendations had initially been made in January 2020, such as the pull down baskets. It is not clear why the landlord did not incorporate all of the recommendations into the works that were undertaken in the first instance. However, that it did not, resulted in the occupational therapist needing to be consulted again, further works and further disruption for the resident and her family.
Also, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the landlord confirmed the scope of the works with the resident before they commenced. This would have helped to manage expectations and highlighted any potential issues at an early stage.
In October and November 2021 the resident also raised her concerns about the contractor’s workmanship, this included chips to the worktop and missing sealant around the kitchen sink. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether these issues remain outstanding. However, there is also no evidence that the landlord provided a response to the resident’s concern and acknowledged the disappointment or inconvenience that the issues with the standard of workmanship would have caused. This was a further failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
The landlord visited the resident around 17 December 2021 and noted that most of the issues had been resolved. However, it is unclear how and when these were resolved and whether the landlord took proactive steps on the matter during that period. This is because, as stated previously, the landlord failed to keep clear records. Therefore, it failed to demonstrate that it upheld it’s stage 1 response commitment to monitor the works. Furthermore, it is not clear that it ensured that its contractor assigned more operatives to the work in order for it to be completed in a timely manner.
The landlord replaced the resident’s fridge–freezer which fulfilled part of the occupational therapist’s November 2021 recommendations, which was appropriate. However, it is unclear when it did so.
In February 2022 the landlord noted that it would complete the outstanding occupational therapist’s November 2021 recommendations by the end of March 2022. The resident stated to the Service that the work was not finished until June 2022. The evidence provided by the landlord does not state otherwise and the cause of the delays are unclear. Nonetheless, this was a further failing that caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience. While it is unclear why the landlord did not incorporate the Occupational therapist’s January 2020 recommendations, it appears some of this delay could have been reasonably avoided.
The Ombudsman notes that as part of lessons learnt in this case, the landlord recognised that its aids and adaptations process needed to be reviewed, which was appropriate. However, as the outcome of the review is unclear, we have made a recommendation that the landlords shares this with both the Service and the resident. This will allow the landlord to demonstrate that it followed through with its commitment to improve its services so the failings highlighted in this case are not repeated.
The landlord offered a further £500 for its poor service at its stage 2 complaint response in March 2022. It is not clear how the compensation was calculated and the description of “poor service” was vague. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have specified what the poor service entailed and what factors were taken into account when reaching the figure. This would have helped to demonstrate that the offer was fair in the circumstances. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to try to put things right, it did not go far enough to try to put things right for the resident.
This is because the level of compensation offered was not proportionate to the detrimental impact that the landlord’s cumulative failures had on the resident, which were:
1. The overall delay in completing the works.
2. Failure to demonstrate that the design of the kitchen was agreed with the resident prior to the start of the work. Also it failed to demonstrate that it effectively worked with the occupational therapist before and during the adaptations works. Including, why it did not incorporate all of the occupational therapist’s 2020 recommendations prior to the commencement of the works, but did so at a later date.
3. Failure to demonstrate that it effectively monitored the contractor’s performance during the course of the works, including the resident’s reports of poor workmanship in October and November 2021.
4. The delay in completing the occupational therapist’s November 2021 recommendations.

The landlord’s poor communication and poor record keeping were also contributing factors that underlined the above failures that caused the resident distress and inconvenience. A separate finding and order has been made for the landlord’s poor recording keeping.

It is also concerning the landlord did not take into consideration the resident’s and her families’ disabilities and vulnerabilities throughout this case. Especially, when the resident highlighted the negative impact that the delay was having on them.
Overall the landlord’s handling of the kitchen adaptation works was poor and the cumulative failures meant that the resident was without a fully functional kitchen for approximately 9 months. The evidence does not demonstrate that the resident was provided with a timescale for the works; however, there was a failure here to manage the resident’s expectations and this investigation has found that the works were unduly delayed. Although the landlord compensated the resident, it did not go far enough to address the detrimental impact those failures had on her. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s kitchen adaptation works

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord issued its stage 1 response approximately 2 months after the resident raised her complaint on 18 August 2021. This is considerably outside of its own policy deadline of 15 working days. The resident also had to chase the landlord for its response within that period, which is unacceptable.
Although the landlord stated that the service the resident received had not met its standards in its stage 1 response. It failed to address the resident’s specific concerns, which included its failure to respond to her correspondence and that its communication was poor. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed those concerns. By doing so, it would have demonstrated to the resident that it had listened to her concerns and was putting things right. As per the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), “landlords should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.”
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 in October 2021 and the landlord responded in March 2022, approximately 5 months later. This was a significant departure from the 20 working days as set out in the landlord’s policy, which is unacceptable.
Although it acknowledged its late response and that the resident’s experience fell below its expected standards, it failed again to address the resident’s specific concerns. This was a further failing.
While the landlord appropriately acknowledged failings in its aids and adaptations process, it would have been reasonable for it to have addressed its specific failures within the case, such as poor communication and poor contract management. In addition, it would have been reasonable to have explained what it should have done to put things right during the case. This would have demonstrated that it had fully learnt lessons from the case and restored the resident’s trust.
Therefore, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling in this case.

The landlord’s record keeping

The records provided to the Service by the landlord were limited in terms of detail and there appear to be significant gaps in its records. This is highlighted throughout this report. Given the extent of the issues this investigation has highlighted, it is concerning that those gaps and omissions have meant the landlord has not been able to clearly demonstrate what steps it had taken to resolve the resident’s concerns. It was also unable to demonstrate what steps it had taken in its overall management of the resident’s kitchen adaptation before and during the works. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s kitchen adaptation works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed to listen to the resident’s concerns and take proactive action to manage its contractors. This led to significant delays in the completion of the resident’s kitchen adaptations, which negatively impacted the resident financially, but also caused her distress and inconvenience.
The landlord also failed to demonstrate that it responded to the resident’s correspondence and had taken into consideration the resident’s vulnerabilities while managing this case. Given the detrimental impact the landlord’s failures had on the resident, it’s compensation did not go far enough to put things right.
The landlord failed to address the resident’s specific concerns in both of its complaint responses and both responses were significantly past the landlord’s response deadlines.
The landlord failed to provide key information that demonstrated what steps it took before and during the resident’s kitchen adaptation works to demonstrate that it managed the situation adequately.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must pay the resident £1580, within 4 weeks of the issue of this report, which comprises of:
1. £780 for the detrimental impact its poor handling of the kitchen adaptations works had on the resident and her family.
2. £400 for its poor complaint handling.
3. £400 for its poor record keeping.
4. Pay the resident the compensation it offered in its complaint responses, if not done so already.
The Ombudsman requires the landlord to undertake a review of the outcomes of this investigation and produce an action plan for service improvement which should be shared with this Service within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, including any updated policies. This action plan should include:
1. Consideration of the effectiveness of the current liaison arrangements between the landlord’s housing management function and the local authority’s Occupational therapist service, and how effective joint working between the two areas can be improved.
2. Review of its contractor monitoring process. Focusing on developing a comprehensive procedure and action plan when works are delayed ensuring that it is customer focused. Consider implementing one, if it does not have one already.
3. Review its record keeping approach with the reference to this Service’s recommendations set out in our May 2023 Knowledge and Information Spotlight report and provide this Service of evidence that it has done so. . In particular, ensuring all resident and partner correspondence on a case is recorded and easily accessible.

Recommendations

The landlord should share the outcome of its aids and adaptations process review with the Service.