Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202216348)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216348

Thirteen Housing Group Limited

15 August 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s kitchen repairs.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident became the tenant of the property following a mutual exchange in February 2021. She has reported that the kitchen has needed several repairs since she had moved in. The landlord arranged with the resident to undertake investment works in mid-August 2022, to rewire her kitchen. Its investment team also agreed to complete some small repairs to the kitchen during the works.
4. The resident complained on 17 August 2022 that the investment works had been completed to a poor standard. She explained that during the re-wiring the landlord had damaged her kitchen units by leaving them outside to get damp. She complained that the landlord had left rubbish at the property and unplugged her fridge-freezer. She stated that the landlord had told her that it would replace her kitchen, yet she was now being told that it would only replace some cupboard doors, for which she would be recharged. 
5. The landlord responded on 23 August 2022. It explained to the resident that she had accepted her property via mutual exchange in its current condition. It detailed the visits that it had undertaken since February 2021, explaining that there were signs of damage to the units, other than that of normal wear and tear. The landlord explained that the resident’s kitchen was only renewed in 2019, and in-line with the Decent Homes Standard, it would not be up for renewal until 2039. However, the landlord stated that if it was able to find similar unit fronts for the resident, it would consider replacing these as a good will gesture. It stated that it had spoken to its contractors, who stated that they had explained what happened with the fridge-freezer, window and units. It stated that the resident had been happy with the contractor’s explanation. It promised to liaise further with the contractor about the rubbish left at the property. The landlord later concluded that it would replace the cupboard and drawer fronts for the resident as a good will gesture.
6. The resident escalated her complaint on 27 September 2022. She explained that she remained dissatisfied with the standard of works to the kitchen. She stated that she had been given an appointment in November 2022 for the works to be completed, and was unhappy with the delay.
7. The landlord sent its stage two response on 12 October 2022. It reiterated that the kitchen was not due to be renewed until 2039. The landlord explained that it had visited the kitchen, and assessed the units. It had concluded that the body of the kitchen units were of a good standard, but that it would replace the door and drawer fronts with ones that match as a goodwill gesture. It also agreed that some of the works originally undertaken in August 2022 were to a poor standard. It assured the resident that it would attend to address these aspects. The landlord explained that it had been delayed in completing the works, due to sourcing the correct parts for the units.
8. In her complaint to this Service, the resident remained dissatisfied with the standard of works undertaken to her kitchen. She was unhappy that the works rectifying the issues had been delayed, and that she had been required to live with an incomplete kitchen for several months. As an outcome, the resident would like the landlord to replace her kitchen, as well as fix the tiling and adding an additional plug socket.

Assessment

9. According to the landlord’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property, as well as its installations in a good state of repair. The landlord also has the right to install, maintain or improve the cables, wires, fixtures and fittings.
10. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord will charge the resident for repairs that are caused by the resident’s neglect, or any damage above the normal wear and tear, including unauthorised alterations. The same policy dictates that when a mutual exchange takes place, the property condition must be that of the minimum void standard before a mutual exchange is approved. The new resident is required to accept responsibility for any alterations, home improvements or outstanding works to the property.
11. The repairs policy does not give a specific timeframe for routine repairs. However, the usual standard amongst social landlords is around 28 days, and so this can be taken as a baseline against which to consider the landlord’s actions in this case.
12. After the resident reported that her kitchen was in a poor state of repair and that it needed to be replaced, the landlord would be expected to consider her request against its repair and maintenance obligations. The landlord acted appropriately by applying the ‘Decent Home Standard’ to assess if the kitchen should be replaced. The policy suggests a lifespan of approximately 30 years for kitchens, therefore the landlord found that, having been installed in 2019, the kitchen would not be due to replacement until around 2039.
13. Alongside considering the age of the kitchen, the landlord would also be expected to consider the condition of the resident’s kitchen, and assess if it is beyond economic repair. The landlord again acted appropriately by attending the property prior to undertaking the investment works on 10 August 2022. It inspected the units and found that some repairs were required, but that the kitchen did not need to be replaced. In-line with general good customer service, the landlord would then be expected to communicate with the resident regarding its decision on a kitchen renewal, and to manage her expectations effectively.
14. The landlord clearly communicated with the resident, both before and during the complaint procedure that her kitchen was not due to be replaced. Nevertheless, the landlord also stated that if it could source matching unit faces, then it would consider replacing these as a goodwill gesture. However, during the investment works in August 2022, the landlord explained to the resident that it would be recharging her for her replacement cupboard doors. This was inconsistent, as the resident would have had an expectation that the landlord would be replacing the door fronts free of charge.
15. The landlord was entitled to seek to re-charge for the repairs, if it felt that it had enough evidence to show that the damage to the resident’s kitchen was caused by neglect, purposeful damage, or alterations by the resident (as per its repairs policy above). The landlord explained to the resident in its first response in August 2022, that it had attended throughout 2021- 2022, and had discovered damage that exceeded the normal wear and tear. However, as stated above, in line with general customer service standards, the landlord needed to communicate consistently with the resident, and effectively manage her expectations. As the reports of damage preceded the landlord’s offer of replacing the unit doors, it was not reasonable to then decide to recharge her without warning.
16. Additionally, the resident stated in her complaint on 17 August 2022 that during the re-wiring, the landlord’s operatives left her kitchen units outside. She explained that the units were damaged due to the damp. The evidence provided is inconclusive as to who placed the units outside, and if they sustained damage or not. After the resident reported that the landlord’s operatives caused damage to the units, the landlord would again be expected to consider her report, and inspect the units for signs of damage. The landlord acted appropriately by asking for images of the units, and followed up the report with its operatives.
17. As there was some ambiguity as to the series of events leading to the units being outside, the landlord attended in September 2022 (exact dates have not been provided to this Service).  This was within a reasonable timeframe, as it would have been roughly within the average 28-day timescale for routine repairs stated above. The landlord inspected the units and found that they were safe and secure to the wall. As there was confusion over whether the units had been left outside by its own operatives, the landlord concluded that it would replace the resident’s drawer fronts and cupboard doors as a goodwill gesture. This was reasonable, as the landlord could no longer be certain if further damage had been caused by its operatives to the resident’s doors and drawer fronts.
18. In her escalation on 27 September 2022, the resident raised further issues regarding the standard of works to the kitchen. This included the standard of tiling, and that the landlord had not fitted the correct number of sockets during the rewiring works in August 2022. She also complained that although the landlord had offered to fit the cupboard doors and drawer fronts as a goodwill gesture, the appointment was not until 4 November 2022. The landlord acted appropriately by attending the property within a reasonable time on 11 October 2022, and inspected the issues raised by the resident. It concluded that further works to remedy the tiles and sockets were required. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging to complete these during the works for November 2022.
19. Not all delays in repairs are considered a failing, if the landlord is continuing to manage the repairs, and again communicating effectively with the resident. The resident raised her concerns regarding her kitchen on 17 August 2022, with the landlord attending on 4 November 2022. Although the repairs were outstanding for three months, the landlord was working proactively to ascertain who was responsible for the repairs. It inspected the works on several occasions to ensure that the kitchen was safe in the interim, and arranged appropriate works for the resident. Once it established in September 2022 that it would undertake further works as a good will gesture, it also kept in communication with the resident, and managed her expectations. The landlord clearly explained that it needed to source matching parts for the kitchen, and that it did not have any available operatives to attend before November 2022. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
20. The landlord acted appropriately in its complaint responses, by clearly explaining the lifespan of social housing kitchens to the resident. It detailed the further works it would undertake to the resident’s kitchen and further managed the resident’s expectations by explaining that it was sourcing materials for the works, and was unable to complete them at an earlier date.
21. However, according to this Service’s complaint handling code, a landlord should identify any errors in its provision of services, acknowledge these faults to the resident, and aim to put things right. In its stage one response, the landlord failed to address all the aspects raised by the resident sufficiently. It instead stated incorrectly that its contractor had already dealt with the issues with the resident. This was not appropriate, as the landlord should address each aspect of the resident’s complaint, and identify any errors. It also gave a seemingly contradictory statement regarding the recharges, stating that the resident had damaged the cupboard doors, and was thus liable for the costs of replacement, and yet it also stated that it would consider replacing them as a good will gesture.
22. In its final response the landlord failed to properly acknowledge that some of the works in August 2022 were below its service standards. It also did not recognise that its handling of the recharges for the resident’s kitchen cupboards had been inconsistent and confusing. The landlord did not offer an apology, or acknowledge the resident’s frustration about the ongoing repairs. This was not appropriate, as the landlord should be able to identify and recognise where its services were provided below standard. This was a failing in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s kitchen repairs.

Orders

24. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

a. Pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s kitchen repairs. 

b. Complete its post works inspection if it has not already, and ensure that the resident’s kitchen is up to a decent standard.

26. Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be sent to this Service within the same four week timeframe.