Stroud District Council (202126000)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126000

Stroud District Council

30 August 2022


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for kitchen improvements.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a bungalow.
  2. The resident has reported that when she moved into the property in 2012 she noted that the kitchen had been adapted to suit the needs of the elderly former tenant, but that the landlord advised it would carry out improvements to the kitchen. She has also reported that she contacted the landlord several times between 2012 and 2019 to request that the improvements be carried out, but that they remain outstanding.
  3. On 27 April 2021, she made another request for the kitchen improvements to be completed. The landlord inspected the property on 17 May 2021 and recorded that the kitchen was in good condition and not due for replacement until 2036. However, it raised a work order for two cupboard doors to be repaired. The resident called the landlord on 14 June and was advised of the findings and told that if she wanted to change the layout herself the landlord would give its consent.
  4. The resident raised a complaint on 17 June 2021. She advised she had been waiting since 2012 for the kitchen to be improved and was only now being told it would not be until 2036. She advised that at the initial inspection the landlord’s surveyor had said he would look at replacing the worktops but this had not been mentioned since.
  5. The landlord arranged for the kitchen to be inspected again on 22 June 2021 and provided its stage one response on 17 July 2021. It advised it was not aware of any issues with the kitchen prior to the resident’s reports it in April 2021. It noted it had inspected the property again in June 2021 and that it considered the current cupboard space was adequate for the number of people living in the property (according to the government’s decent homes standard to which the landlord adhered to) but was due for replacement in 2026. It apologised that there had been a failure in the service as there had been a lack communication and misleading information, resulting in the resident not being made aware of its plans for her kitchen.
  6. Although the resident was initially prepared to wait until 2026 for the kitchen to be renewed she escalated her complaint on 20 August 2021 when it became apparent that a neighbour’s kitchen was being replaced, as she felt she was being treated unfairly by the landlord and misled.
  7. In its stage two complaint response on 13 September 2021, the landlord acknowledged that a number of surveys had been undertaken at her home, and neighbouring properties which appeared to be “inconsistent in both approach and outcome.” It advised that the inconsistencies appeared to be as a result of a number of temporary members of staff deviating from its established approach and procedures to undertaking surveys. It said it had found evidence of her being provided with poor and inconsistent advice, but no evidence of her being deliberately misled. It also advised that it could not comment on its communications with the neighbours about their kitchen due to data protection regulations. It offered a good will gesture of £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the poor service it had provided.
  8. The resident contacted this service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and felt that the kitchen improvements should be made before 2026.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident has reported that she was told by the landlord when she accepted the bungalow in 2012 that improvements would be made to the kitchen, and that she requested that the improvements be completed several times between 2012 and 2019. The landlord has reported that it has no record of these requests. While the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s reports of the conversations that occurred during her inspection, the Ombudsman was not present during these conversations and so in the absence of any written evidence, the Ombudsman cannot make a determination about what was said.
  2. Additionally, paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (which determines the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction) states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within six months of the issue arising. While the resident has reported seeking updates from the landlord between 2012-2019, it is not evident that the resident made a formal complaint until June 2021. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to investigate of issue a determination relating to the events prior to 2021. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in June 2021.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy notes that it will investigate routine repairs within 28 working days. While not strictly a repair issue, following the resident’s report on 27 April 2021 that it was her understanding that improvements should have been made to the kitchen, the landlord responded appropriately by sending a surveyor to inspect the property on 17 May 2021. Given that the surveyor reported that the kitchen was in reasonable condition and not due for replacement, it was reasonable that the landlord did not order for a replacement at this time. It was also appropriate that the landlord raised the works to the cupboard doors as recommended by the surveyor. It is not evident, however, that the landlord provided an update to the resident following its surveyor’s inspection, which left her unclear of its position, and caused her time and trouble in needing to chase an update.
  4. Following the resident’s formal complaint on 17 June 2021, the landlord responded appropriately by investigating whether there were any records of the initial inspection or the resident’s previous requests. It also took reasonable steps to ensure that its surveyor’s assessment in May 2021 was accurate by sending a second surveyor to inspect the property. On this occasion, the landlord appropriately contacted the resident following the inspection to advise it considered the kitchen fit for purpose and that it was not due to be replaced until 2026. It appropriately acknowledged and apologised for the fact there had been “been a lack communication and misleading information” which had resulted in the resident not being aware of its plans for her kitchen.
  5. It also appropriately confirmed that while it would not be carrying out any immediate improvements to the kitchen, if there were adaptations required relating to the resident’s health or mobility then she could contact an occupational health therapist. While the resident has subsequently advised she considered this advice unnecessary, it was nevertheless reasonable to ensure the resident was aware of all her options.
  6. Once the resident escalated her complaint, on discovering that a neighbour’s kitchen was being replaced, the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the reasons why the neighbour’s kitchen was being replaced. The Ombudsman understands that landlords must adhere to data protection regulations and that it is reasonable to withhold information relating to a third party. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord advised it was unable to disclose the considerations or details relating to her neighbour’s kitchen improvements.
  7. Regarding the landlord’s position on improvements to the kitchen, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord carried out a reasonable inspection of the kitchen to determine if any repairs were required, and in the absence of evidence relating to any assertion improvements would be carried out, it was reasonable for it to advise that the kitchen would be renewed during its next cyclical programme in 2026.
  8. Throughout the course of the complaint, however, it is evident that the landlord provided conflicting information about when the kitchen was due for cyclical improvements, and that it failed to provide updates following its surveyor’s inspection. The landlord appropriately acknowledged in its stage two response that its communication and the information it had provided was poor. It appropriately advised that this had been due to its staff not following correct procedure, for which it apologised. It also appropriately offered £100 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication. This amount was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on a resident, which may include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure regarding its response to the resident’s requests for kitchen improvements.

Recommendations

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord to reiterate its offer of £100 compensation, if it is yet to be accepted.