South Kesteven District Council (202204512)

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204512

South Kesteven District Council

30 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. Repairs to the property and the associated delays.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a 2 bedroom semi-detached bungalow. The tenancy commenced on 8 March 2021.
The evidence from the landlord confirmed the resident suffers from mental health vulnerabilities.

Landlord obligations

The landlord operates a repairs policy which categorises repairs between emergency and routine repairs:
1. It does not provide expected timescales for reported repairs, other than emergency repairs which would be made safe within 24 hours. It states it aims to complete all other repairs as quickly as possible.
2. All routine repairs will be arranged by appointment and if it cannot make an appointment, it will inform the resident as soon as possible and discuss an alternative date.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 35 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states:
1. A complaint is duly made when it has been referred to the Ombudsman and it has exhausted, or the Ombudsman has decided it has exhausted, the member’s internal processes for considering complaints.
The resident duly made her complaint to this Service following her stage 2 response received on 6 June 2022. Whilst this Service recognises the resident had previously complained to the landlord and received a stage 2 response to her complaint on 11 March 2022 about a different list of repair delays, that complaint was not duly made to this Service and therefore cannot be investigated.
Where reference has been made to the resident’s complaint dated 11 March 2022, this is provided for context and these issues have not formed part of this investigation. This investigation will consider the evidence which occurred since 11 March 2022.

Events prior to internal complaints procedure

On 23 September 2019, the landlord arranged for an asbestos survey of the property. The surveyor conducted tests of several areas of the property. It confirmed there was Chrysotile asbestos present. It concluded, in accordance with the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, exposure to asbestos was very low. The recommended action was to manage and maintain the areas affected. It only recommended removal if refurbishment works were conducted.
On 23 April 2021, the landlord’s repair log listed a repair job for replacement of the resident’s kitchen cupboard door. There is also the same entry listed on 1 July 2021 and 16 September 2021. The resident reported to this Service that she had issues with her kitchen since moving into the property.
On 31 January 2022, the resident reported a severe crack had appeared on her window.
On 11 March 2022, the landlord provided a stage 2 response to a previous complaint by the resident. It provided an action plan for agreed works:
1. Replacement of kitchen drawer front and plinths would be replaced on 29 March 2022.
2. It agreed to remove the floor tiles in the living room and second bedroom. It would move all furniture and provide storage boxes to enable the works. It explained the works required strict control and whilst in progress, if the resident chose to remain in the property, she would not be allowed to enter the rooms whilst removal and clean down of the work was completed.
3. It confirmed on the date of the letter, it had already removed the tiles from the lounge and rear hallway in her property. However, the resident advised that she wanted the landlord to wait until she had all her belongings in storage from her second bedroom, before the floor tiles were removed from that room. It would wait for her to confirm when she was ready for the tiles to be removed before it arranged those works.
4. It offered the resident £1,000 compensation. This was later paid to the resident.

Summary of events

On 14 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and reported the doors at both the front and back of her property were defective. It caused water ingress at the bottom of the doors. She asked the landlord to inform its contractor of this issue ahead of planned repair works on 28 March 2022.
On 25 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to ask when the removal of floor tiles could be booked in and advised of her availability. The landlord responded and confirmed it had already requested the works from its contractor. It would agree a date with the resident when its contractor replied.
On 28 March 2022, the resident and landlord engaged in an email conversation. It consisted of the resident reporting various concerns to the landlord following the attendance of its contractors on the same date:
1. She explained:
  1. When her door was fixed, the work was not to the standard she expected and she had to trim the sealant as it would get jammed. The door also had marks on it.
  2. Some of the windows needed to be adjusted as they would not open and were twisted.
  3. The kitchen window pane installed by the contractor was cracked. The contractor also forgot to bring 2 further window panes which were to be installed.
  4. She was concerned this was the 6th time the contractors have attended and it had worn her down and she was stressed.
2. She requested a copy of the asbestos report. The landlord agreed to look into this.
3. The landlord confirmed the contractor advised it had missed 1 sealed window unit. It had also agreed to replace the window unit which had 2 scratches. The contractor apologised for its mistake. It would reattend to install the windows.
4. The resident requested the planned works to remove the remainder of the tiling be scheduled.
On 29 March 2022, the resident requested her issues raised in her previous emails on 28 March 2022 were recorded as a formal complaint. She explained:
1. The repairs had gone on for too long and it had been over 1 year.
2. The contractors would attend, but bring the incorrect colours to replace the kitchen after 5 attendances. As the colour had been discontinued, the landlord should replace the kitchen.
On the same date, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It also logged a repair to change the sink cupboard door and the sink drawer front. The attendance report noted it had taken the drawer front with the handle attached to assist in finding a replacement.
On 4 April 2022, the resident reported an ingress of water from under her back door. On the same date, the landlord instructed its contractor to undertake a removal and refit of the door to prevent water ingress. It was planned to complete this when its contractor attended to replace the cracked glass panes.
On 19 April 2022, the resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2. She explained:
1. She expected the stage 1 response to be provided by 18 April 2022.
2. The windows were cracked but covered with tape. Her back door did not prevent water entering.
3. The landlord had not provided her with a date when works to the kitchen and repair of a faulty socked would be carried out.
4. The landlord had not kept to its repair timescales. She requested the works be carried out within 8 weeks and to receive £500 compensation.
5. She could not put her own flooring down until the door stopped water leaking through.
On 20 April 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It explained:
1. The colour of the kitchen drawer front had been discontinued. It made further enquiries to source a new drawer front for the resident.
2. On 4 April 2022, it instructed its contractor to remove and refit the door to prevent the water ingress. It would be completed when the contractor returned to replace the cracked glass panes of the window. It would inspect the door security when the contractor attended, as the resident had recently reported it had sprung open.
3. It contacted its contractor to remove the asbestos tiles on the spare bedroom floor. It would book the appointment when it received the availability from the contractor. It noted it wanted to complete all of the removal previously however, the resident stated it would be a couple of months before she would be in a position to have the room cleared.
4. The repair to the faulty electrical socket in the living room was raised with the repairs team. The resident would be contacted to repair the socket.
5. It acknowledged there was outstanding issues which required resolution. However, the repairs were in progress. It had also agreed to significant additional works at her property in respect of decoration, due to its poor service to her previously.
6. It did not uphold the complaint because it was working to resolve the outstanding repairs.
On 21 April 2022, due to the resident’s preferred employee at the contractor having limited availability, she agreed to an appointment to fix the windows and doors on 11 May 2022.
On 22 April 2022, the landlord’s repair log confirmed it attended to repair the double socket in the lounge as 1 side did not work.
On 26 April 2022, the resident advised she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2 for the same reasons raised in her email of 19 April 2022.
On 2 May 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to advise she needed to cancel the appointment scheduled for 11 May 2022 to repair and replace the windows as her dog was unwell. She asked it to be rescheduled after 29 June 2022. The landlord arranged an appointment for its contractors to attend on 29 June 2022 to finish the work to the windows and doors.
On 20 May 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to request an extension to provide its stage 2 response by 31 May 2022. It explained there was a number of complaint issues which required further investigation and it wanted to provide a thorough response to the issues raised.
On 31 May 2022, the landlord requested a further extension to provide its stage 2 response by 6 June 2022. It explained urgent operational issues delayed it being able to respond by the agreed date.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 June 2022:
1. It apologised for the delay to respond.
2. It reiterated the unit colour of the existing kitchen was discontinued by the supplier. It had been discussing the options to match the colour of the drawer front.
3. It explained, an appointment was made for removal and refit of the resident’s window and door. However, the resident refused access because her preferred individual to undertake the work was unwell. An appointment was therefore provisionally made for 13 June 2022.
4. It was waiting for its contractor to provide a removal date for the asbestos tiles. The resident had previously informed the landlord the room was not in a state for the tiles to be removed and this caused the delay to instruct a contractor for the works to be completed.
5. The repairs team attended on 22 April 2022 to repair the faulty socket.
6. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it believed it had worked to resolve the outstanding issues with the resident.
On the same date, the resident replied to the landlord’s stage 2 response and asked for confirmation when the contractors would attend to fit the window.

Events post internal complaint procedure

On 11 July 2022, the resident clarified that her complaint related to:
1. Broken tiling in the spare room which the landlord was notified of 2 years ago.
2. The kitchen drawer front, all plinths and the kitchen cupboard were in disrepair and she was missing a cupboard handle. The landlord said it did not have the required colour to provide an exact replacement. However, she said she received information from her joiner when he measured up the kitchen, that they had a replacement in the required colour.
3. The delays to fix the door. It was noted this had been repaired since her complaint.
4. The electrical socket was not repaired by the landlord which she explained was a health and safety hazard. She arranged for it to be repaired herself.
5. She requested an asbestos report from the landlord which it did not provide.
There is no evidence from the landlord to confirm when the repairs were completed. The resident informed this Service the final repair was completed in May 2023.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its Dispute Resolution Principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes

b. put things right, and

c. learn from outcomes.

Repairs to the property and the associated delays

Doors and windows

On 11 March 2022, the landlord produced an action plan to complete the outstanding repairs. It aimed to complete the repairs to the windows on 28 March 2022.
The evidence also shows the landlord had previously attended to complete repairs to the doors in January 2022. However, there is no evidence the resident reported further issues with water ingress under her doors until 14 March 2022. The landlord did however agree for its contractors to investigate the door concerns when fitting the windows as part of the action plan repairs on 28 March 2022.
Following the contractor’s attendance on 28 March 2022, the resident reported the contractor installed a window pane which was scratched and it also had forgotten another window pane that should be installed. She also reported the door would jam due to the sealant fitted not being the correct size for the door. She later reported there was still an ingress of water under the door on 4 April 2022. The landlord showed good practice to ensure its contractors attended the property to carry out repair works by the specified action plan date.
It was unfortunate the contractor mistakenly installed a scratched glass pane and forgot a further glass pane was required to be installed. The contractor had also failed to prevent water ingress from the door following repairs in January 2022 and on 28 March 2022. Whilst this Service appreciates mistakes can occur and attempted repairs may be insufficient in the first instance, the contractual relationship is between the landlord and the resident, therefore the landlord is responsible for the overall communication of repairs, not its contractor. It caused detriment to the resident and prevented the timescales provided from being met. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations the issues would be resolved within the action plan schedule.
Whilst the repairs to the doors were unsuccessful to prevent water ingress, the landlord showed good practice to instruct its contractor to take a different approach to remove and refit the doors to prevent water ingress on 4 April 2022. The landlord explained this would be completed at the same time the contractors reattended to replace her window panes.
When the landlord provided its stage 2 response, the repairs to the doors and windows had not been completed. The landlord explained this was delayed due to the resident’s preferred employee at the contractor having limited availability to attend. The resident had also cancelled the scheduled appointment on 11 May 2022 due to a pet emergency. The landlord acted fairly by accommodating the resident’s request for a preferred employee. It was unfortunate the resident was unable to keep the appointment due to unforeseen circumstances.
The resident requested the appointment be rescheduled after 29 June 2022 and the landlord showed good practice by arranging for an appointment with its contractor on the first available date. Whilst the landlord’s repairs policy does not confirm an expected timescale for completing repairs, the landlord showed took the matter seriously and wanted to complete the repairs without causing further delay to the resident. This date was approximately 3 months after the landlord’s action plan target however, this Service appreciates the delays after the attendance on 28 March 2022 were unforeseen and due to accommodating the resident’s wishes.
The landlord showed some good practice during its handling of these repairs, however, the initial delay due to the quality of service provided by the contractor meant that the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations by failing to complete repairs within its action plan timescale. This Service recognises the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and is evidence of a service failing by the landlord.

Damaged kitchen

The evidence provided by the landlord in its repairs log, suggests it was aware of damage to the resident’s kitchen unit since 23 April 2021. The landlord has not provided any further evidence to explain why this repair was listed in its repair log a further 2 times without a resolution, prior to the resident’s complaint. This evidence suggests the kitchen units were damaged since the resident moved into her property in March 2021.
The landlord’s action plan aimed to complete the replacement of the damaged kitchen areas on the week commencing 28 March 2022. The landlord explained in its complaint response that following inspection, the colour of the kitchen had been discontinued by the manufacturer and this caused delays to replace the damaged areas. However, the landlord was on notice the resident had reported the damaged kitchen areas since April 2021. It was inappropriate the landlord took approximately 1 year to confirm the colour was unavailable. This evidence suggests the landlord did not take seriously the resident’s concerns of the damaged kitchen or sought to provide a prompt investigation and solution.
When the landlord confirmed to the resident the colour had been discontinued, it did not seek to provide the resident with a revised action plan regarding its next steps. The resident asked the landlord to provide new expected timescales, however there is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident with a revised date. If it was not able to provide a timescale for repairs to be completed, the landlord should implement a good standard of communication with the resident to ensure she was fully informed of the works required and regularly updated on its actions. This is evidence of poor communication.
The resident was understandably frustrated the landlord was unable to complete the replacement of the fixtures. She had lived with the outstanding repairs to the kitchen since moving into the property. It was reasonable she wanted the landlord to provide her with a revised date to complete the repairs. The landlord has failed to evidence it had made any progress to provide a solution to this issue between 28 March 2022 and its stage 2 response on 6 June 2022. This was a period of over 2 months. This Service would expect the landlord to provide revised timescales and communicate effectively with the resident its planned next steps and provide evidence of its email correspondence to show it had taken action. This is evidence of poor repairs management and communication. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations in this regard.
The resident asked the landlord if it could instead replace the whole kitchen as it could not find a matching colour for the replacements. This Service appreciates the landlord would normally replace kitchen units as part of a cyclical repairs programme. The evidence does not show the landlord took reasonable steps to find a matching colour or considered further actions in respect of this issue, such as consideration of bringing forward its scheduled annual replacement programme for the kitchen if it was due to be replaced. This Service would expect to see evidence it communicated with the resident about this.

Asbestos tiles and electrical socket

On 11 March 2022, the landlord confirmed as part of its action plan, it would wait for the resident to confirm when she had cleared out her second bedroom before it scheduled works to remove the asbestos tiles in that room and the living room. On 25 March 2022, the resident confirmed to the landlord she was ready for the landlord to schedule the planned works to remove the tiles.
The landlord confirmed within its complaint responses of 20 April 2022 and 6 June 2022 it had contacted its contractor to provide availability to remove the tiles. It was however waiting for an available date to be provided. At the end of the internal complaints procedure, it had been a delay of approximately 3 months since the resident advised the works could commence. This Service acknowledges the landlord’s asbestos survey did not raise an immediate risk for the tiles to be urgently removed and it was an improvement works which the landlord elected to complete. It was not therefore a repair which required an urgent completion timescale under its repairing obligations.
It is recognised the removal of asbestos in any form requires specialist contractors and a significant level of planning to ensure the works are completed properly and safely. Whilst the landlord was not required to remove the tiles, it had agreed to do so. It is acknowledged the landlord was waiting for its specialist contractor to confirm availability and therefore this was out of the landlord’s control. However, this Service would expect the landlord to appropriately communicate with the resident and manage her expectations. It would have been good practice to provide a thorough explanation of the reasons for the delay.
This Service also notes the resident requested a copy of the asbestos survey. Whilst this Service cannot order the landlord to share a copy of this survey, it may have been beneficial for the landlord to have either shared the survey, if it was able to do so, or give the resident reassurance by way of summarising the survey, to confirm there was low risk of exposure to the asbestos whilst it was awaiting its contractor’s availability. The landlord’s communication was poor and this was evidence of a service failing.
There is no evidence the resident reported the issues with the electrical socket to the landlord previously until her email of 19 April 2022. The landlord showed good practice to respond to this issue within its complaint response and raised a repair. The landlord’s evidence confirmed this was repaired on 22 April 2022. This Service cannot see evidence the resident arranged for this repair to be completed herself. However, if this was the case, the landlord should review its repairs policy to make a further compensation award to the resident under its right to repair obligations.
Overall, the landlord did show good practice and attempted to complete the repairs as quickly as possible. Whilst there was unforeseen circumstances which delayed some of the repairs after 28 March 2022, the evidence shows the landlord had failed to meet its repair timescales set out in its action plan, communicated poorly with the resident regarding revised timescales and did not seek to manage her expectations. This caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s handling of the repairs was service failure.
This Service recognises the landlord compensated the resident for various issued raised in a previous stage 2 complaint response for outstanding works until 11 March 2022. This Service has made an award for compensation at the end of this report for the service failure. However, this has been made in respect of the repair delays since 11 March 2022 when the landlord provided an action plan. Furthermore, this Service would expect the landlord to have a robust policy position in respect of repair timescales. Whilst this case required a tailored approach to accommodate the resident, a lack of clear and agreed timescales in the repairs policy, leaves an inconsistent approach and a resident could be left not knowing what the expected level of service should be. A recommendation has been made at the end of this report for the landlord to review its repairs policy.

The associated complaint

The resident complained to the landlord on 29 March 2022. The landlord showed good practice to acknowledge the complaint on the same date.
The landlord’s complaint policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) required it to provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days. The landlord did not provide its stage 1 response until 20 April 2022. This was a delay of 8 days. There is no evidence the landlord sought to agree an extension with the resident to provide its stage 1 response. The landlord failed to meet its published timescales.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 26 April 2022. The landlord was unable to provide a response within 20 working days and agreed a 2 week extension to provide its response on 20 May 2022. On 31 May 2022, it explained it required a further 1 week extension to provide its response. On both of the extension requests, the landlord showed good practice to explain the reasons it required the extension. However, its reasoning for the second extension was due to urgent operational issues. Whilst this Service appreciates the landlord provided its reasoning and apologised to the resident for the delay, the resident’s complaint was not complex as it did not involve multiple departments or areas of service delivery. It was disappointing the landlord required a further extension due to capacity and resourcing of its complaint decision maker in its complaint response timescales. The delays left the resident in the complaints process, without a clear resolution. This is evidence of a service failure.
The resident complained that the landlord had not responded to several issues within her complaint. This Service has reviewed the emails the resident sent to the landlord relating to the outstanding repairs on 28 March 2022 which formed her complaint. The landlord’s complaint responses show it responded to all of the issues the resident raised when making her complaint. If the resident has further concerns some repairs are outstanding, she should raise this with the landlord. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss any outstanding repair concerns.
The landlord’s complaint responses were also unreasonable as it explained it would not uphold the resident’s complaint as the repairs were in progress. It failed to fully recognise the delays caused by its contractors failed to enable it to meet the timescales provided in its action plan. Furthermore, it failed to consider the resident had reported the repairs required to her kitchen since she moved into the property. This Service acknowledges the landlord previously paid compensation in its complaint response of 11 March 2022 however, it should have reassessed its failures in line with the new complaint raised by the resident and its failure to meet the agreed timescales.
The landlord has confirmed to this Service it did not have a compensation policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaints. It had however been in the process of seeking approval for the adoption of such policy. A robust compensation policy would provide guidance to the landlord’s complaints team to make awards for compensation when it has failed to deliver the service its residents expect. Whilst this Service recognises the landlord was attempting to improve its policy position in respect of compensation, no evidence has been provided to confirm a policy is in place. An order has been made at the end of the report to provide a copy of this policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the repair delays.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to meet the timescales provided in its action plan and poorly communicated with the resident about revised timescales to complete the repairs, failing to manage her expectations.
The landlord failed to uphold its complaint handling timescales and unreasonably delayed its stage 2 response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £200 in compensation for any distress and inconvenience and time and trouble the resident was caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
3. Pay the resident a total of £100 in compensation for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling delays.
4. Assess if any further compensation is required to be paid to the resident for the time taken to complete the outstanding repairs.
The landlord should provide evidence of its compensation policy.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Contact the resident to record any new repair concerns the resident may have and process these in line with its repairs policy.
2. Review its repairs policy and provide expected timescales to complete each type of repair.