Wandle Housing Association Limited (202125476)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125476

Wandle Housing Association Limited

30 March 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:

Repairs to the resident’s kitchen.
The resident’s request for a replacement kitchen.
The resident’s complaints.

Background

The property is a three-bedroom house and the resident has an assured tenancy, which started on 13 October 2003.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the fixtures and fittings within the property, which includes the kitchen units.
The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repairs log shows that on 21 January 2021 the resident reported severe damp and condensation on the kitchen ceiling and around the kitchen window. The landlord raised a repairs order on the same day (the repairs log does not show a completion date against the order).
A further order was raised by the landlord on 6 April 2021 to inspect the kitchen window for damp and condensation (the notes to the order confirm that the damp and condensation were not looked at previously). The repairs log shows that the inspection was carried out on 28 April 2021. However, there are no details in the landlord’s repairs log to confirm the outcome of the inspection.
Also, on 6 April 2021, the landlord raised an order to inspect cracks in the dry lining on the walls in the kitchen and bedroom. The job is shown in the landlord’s repairs log as having been completed on 28 April 2021. However, it is unclear whether repairs were carried out on this date or whether it relates to the completion of the inspection only.
On 17 June 2021, the landlord logged a complaint from the resident who said she had been waiting since January 2021 for the landlord to deal with the damp and condensation in the kitchen, and that the delay was having an impact on her mental health. The landlord responded on the same day to confirm that an appointment had been scheduled for 19 July 2021. However, the letter did not provide an explanation for the delay in responding to the resident’s reports of damp and condensation. The resident received a further reply to her complaint on 2 July 2021. However, this Service has not had sight of the landlord’s later reply.
On 15 July 2021, the landlord raised a further order to refit two of the kitchen cupboard doors and to reseal around the kitchen sink. The repairs log does not show a completion date for the job.
On 19 July 2021 a contractor attended and carried out repairs to address a leak under the kitchen sink. However, there are no details stating the work that was carried out by the contractor. In relation to the damp and condensation around the window, the resident has confirmed to this Service that she was advised by the landlord to open the trickle vents fitted to the kitchen window, which the resident has confirmed did alleviate the damp and condensation issues.
The resident phoned the landlord on 11 August 2021 to report that the contractor had failed to attend an appointment on that day to carry out the outstanding repairs to the cupboard doors and the sealant around the kitchen sink. The resident was advised by the landlord that the appointment had been cancelled. The resident therefore wrote to the landlord on 12 August 2021 to report the missed appointment and to ask when the works would be completed. The resident requested an explanation of why the job order had been cancelled and why she had not been informed of the cancellation. The resident stated that her kitchen was in “disrepair”.
The resident wrote and spoke to the landlord on 6 September 2021 to say that she had contacted the landlord on various occasions during August 2021 to chase the outstanding works to the kitchen. She had been verbally informed on 19 August 2021 by the landlord that an appointment had been booked for a contractor to attend on 26 August 2021 to carry out repairs to the kitchen. The resident confirmed that an operative had attended on 26 August 2021, but had left without carrying out any repairs because he was unaware of the required work.
The landlord logged the resident’s contact on 6 September 2021 as a formal stage one complaint. The landlord’s complaints log stated that the resident was dissatisfied that she had not been updated about whether her kitchen would be upgraded, despite contacting the landlord “several times”.
The landlord replied to the resident’s complaint on 17 September 2021, in which it confirmed that the kitchen was scheduled for replacement in its 2023/24 programme (the landlord said that it had previously written to the resident on 6 September 2023 confirming this).
The landlord’s complaints log indicates that on 21 September 2021, the resident had requested the landlord to escalate her complaint about the kitchen upgrade to stage two of the complaints process. The resident said she could not wait until 2023 for a kitchen upgrade due to health and safety concerns and she had therefore requested an inspection by a surveyor.
On 28 September 2021, an internal email was sent by the landlord and referred to a conversation with the resident, in which she had reported mould behind the kitchen unit. The email confirmed that the resident had indicated this was a health and safety matter.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 October 2021 to say it understood she wanted to escalate her complaint about the kitchen repairs because she had not been contacted. The landlord asked the resident to confirm the outstanding works.
On 4 October 2021, the landlord replied to the resident’s stage two complaint about the kitchen upgrade and stated:
1. The landlord’s surveyor had commented that, in his professional opinion, the kitchen was not a health and safety risk and apart from “some minor repairs”, there was no urgency in bringing the replacement of the kitchen forward in the programme;
2. The landlord stated that it had acted within its “policies and standard processes” when dealing with the stage one complaint;
3. The landlord said that kitchens were maintained to the Decent Homes Standard, unless the kitchen was a risk or beyond repair;
4. The resident’s kitchen was deemed not to require replacement and, as such, it would be replaced as part of the 2023/24 programme.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 October 2021 and confirmed that there were still outstanding repairs to the kitchen. She did not provide details of the outstanding repairs,
On 16 October 2021, the landlord sent its stage two complaint reply about the kitchen repairs, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord reiterated that the resident’s request to replace her kitchen had been declined following an inspection;
2. The landlord said it had prepared the kitchen walls ready to be painted and it was now the resident’s responsibility to decorate the walls, as per its repairs policy;
3. It had raised an order to supply and fit three cupboard doors to the kitchen units. The resident was advised that the doors may not match the existing ones as the existing ones were obsolete (the landlord’s repairs log shows that the order was raised on 16 October 2021 and it included a new sink unit, base unit, new worktop and two new base unit drawers);
4. The resident had reported a leak coming from the kitchen sink and the resident was unsure whether this was from excess water during washing up or from a leak caused by a defective pipe or taps. The leak had caused mould on the wall behind the kitchen sink. The landlord confirmed that it would arrange for its contractor to attend on 18 October 2021 to trace and remedy any leaks, mould wash behind the kitchen sink and replace the missing cupboard doors;
5. The landlord noted that the resident’s preferred outcome was for the kitchen to be replaced and confirmed that after the contractor’s visit, it would review the resident’s request for the kitchen replacement to be brought forward.
The resident has advised this Service that the contractor attended on 18 October 2021 and measured the kitchen. On 20 October 2021, the resident received an appointment letter from the landlord confirming that the repairs to the kitchen would be carried out on 24 November 2021.
On 22 November 2021, the landlord raised an order to repair a crack that had appeared on the wall plastering in the kitchen. The order was raised on a 28-day priority code (to be completed by 20 December 2021).
The contractor attended on 24 November 2021 to carry out the kitchen unit repairs, but the resident has reported that it did not carry out the work. The landlord’s repairs log indicates that its contractor fitted a new kitchen sink base unit, worktop and one cupboard door on 26 November 2021, and the resident has advised this Service that the landlord carried out a mould wash between 24 and 26 November 2021.
Between 29 November 2021 and 7 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord on various occasions to request an update on the outstanding works. The resident has advised this Service that she was not contacted by the landlord.
The resident phoned the landlord on 10 December 2021 regarding a missed appointment on the same day. The appointment had been made for a contractor to return as the crack on the kitchen wall, which had previously been made good, had returned. The resident explained that she had taken a day off work for the appointment. The landlord logged the call as a stage one complaint.
On 30 December 2021, the resident phoned the landlord to make a complaint that her stage one complaint had not been replied to in a timely manner and therefore she wanted to escalate her complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 December 2021 to confirm it had opened a new stage one complaint regarding the missed appointment. However, on 31 December 2021, the landlord wrote again to say that the new complaint would be cancelled as the resident already had a live complaint in progress.
On 10 January 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to apologise for the delay in responding to her stage one complaint and, because of the delay, it would be escalating the complaint to stage two of its process.
On 7 February 2022, the landlord raised an order to trace and remedy a leak under the kitchen sink. The landlord’s repairs log shows that this work was completed on 15 February 2022.
The landlord sent its stage two response on 18 February 2022 regarding the delays in completing outstanding repairs to the kitchen and stated the following:
1. The job to complete the kitchen repairs had been scheduled for 10 December 2021, but had been cancelled due to “limited resources resulting in operational inefficiency”;
2. The landlord had failed to contact the resident to advise her that the appointment would have to be rescheduled and apologised for this;
3. The landlord confirmed that the appointment had now been rebooked for 23 February 2022;
4. The landlord apologised and offered the resident £10 for the cancelled appointment on 10 December 2021 and £40 for the inconvenience caused by the delays.
The resident has advised this Service that a contractor attended on 23 February 2022 and carried out repairs to the crack in the kitchen plasterwork.
The landlord inspected the kitchen on 2 March 2022 and agreed to liaise with the appropriate manager regarding the possibility of replacing the kitchen. In the meantime, the landlord said it would replace the kitchen sink unit and doors. The landlord also said it would arrange an appointment to repair the leak in the kitchen cupboard as the repair carried out on 15 February 2022 had failed to deal with it and it was still leaking.
On 10 March 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise her that an appointment had been booked on 18 March 2022 to replace the sink base unit. The landlord’s repairs log states: “attend to replace sink base unit as previous install of poor quality, replace plinths…worktop”. The letter also stated that the correct condense fitting should be fitted to the waste pipe under the kitchen sink.
On 15 and 18 March 2022, the resident wrote to the Ombudsman to report that her kitchen had been left in “disrepair” since the landlord had carried out work in November 2021. She attached photographs and videos showing missing plinths and debris left under the sink base unit. She also reported concerns about broken appointments and the standard of the work carried out by the landlord’s contractor.
On 13 April 2022, the resident wrote to this Service to confirm that the landlord had carried out work to the kitchen units on 18 March 2022 but had been unable to complete the work. The resident stated that the plinths were missing and one of the cupboard doors still needed to be supplied and fitted. The resident also stated that the plastering carried out to repair the crack in the kitchen had been done to a poor standard.
On 10 March 2023, the landlord advised this Service that the missing plinths and cupboard door were fitted to the kitchen units on 13 May 2022.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the resident’s kitchen

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states:
1. The repairs that the landlord will carry out for tenants includes repairs to kitchen units, worktops and plumbing;
2. Emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours and for non-emergency repairs (referred to as ‘appointed repairs’ within the policy) the service standard is to complete them within 28 days (unless the tenant is unable to agree a mutual appointment within these timescales or the type of repair requires more time to complete);
3. Tenants are responsible for internal decorations.
During 2021, the resident reported the following repairs to the landlord in relation to her kitchen:
1. Damp and condensation around the kitchen window and ceiling;
2. A leak under the kitchen sink, which led to mould forming behind the sink unit;
3. Defects to the kitchen units;
4. A crack in the plasterwork in the kitchen.
The resident first reported the damp and condensation in the kitchen on 21 January 2021 and the landlord’s repairs log shows it raised an order for this on the same day. However, the repairs log shows that a further order was raised for the same issue on 6 April 2021 and the comments indicate that the issue was not previously dealt with by the landlord. The repairs log indicates that the landlord carried out an inspection in relation to the damp and condensation, but there are no notes to indicate the outcome of the inspection.
The resident submitted a complaint on 17 June 2021 to say she had been waiting since January 2021 for the damp and condensation to be addressed. The landlord has not supplied this Service with any information to show that it carried out repairs or gave advice to the resident regarding the damp and condensation. However, the resident had advised this Service that she was advised in July 2021 by the landlord to open the trickle ventilation that is incorporated into the kitchen window. She confirmed that she followed this advice, and this alleviated the damp and condensation issues. There are no further reports of damp and condensation by the resident in any of the subsequent correspondence to the landlord.
The evidence indicates that the problems regarding the damp and condensation around the kitchen window and ceiling were resolved by the landlord giving simple advice to the resident. However, there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord diagnosing the problem and giving the resident appropriate advice. The delay led to the resident having to submit a complaint on 17 June 2021. Given the landlord’s commitment in its repairs policy to deal with non-emergency repairs within 28 days, it was inappropriate for the landlord to take nearly six months to advise the resident of steps to alleviate the damp and condensation problems. The landlord has not offered the resident financial redress for this and has therefore not put things right.
In relation to the leak under the kitchen sink, it is unclear from the evidence when this was first reported by the resident. The contractor attended on 19 July 2021 to trace and remedy the leak, and again the landlord’s records are unclear about the work that was carried out. The landlord’s stage two reply on 16 October 2021 confirmed that it would arrange for a contractor to attend on 18 October 2021 in order to trace and remedy any leaks. The Ombudsman has been unable to establish from the evidence whether this was a continuation of the leak that was repaired by the contractor in July 2021, or was a new leak under the kitchen sink.
The landlord raised a further order to trace and remedy a leak under the kitchen sink on 7 February 2022 and the work was completed on 15 February 2022. However, the landlord’s repairs log shows that following a further inspection by the contractor on 2 March 2022, an order was raised to “fit correct condense fitting to waste pipe”. The resident has advised this Service that at this point, there was still a leak under the kitchen sink. Based on the evidence received, the leak was repaired on 18 March 2022.
The Ombudsman is unable to tell from the evidence whether the leak reported on 7 February 2022 was due to the standard of repairs carried out in 2021, or whether the leak was from a different source. However, the evidence suggests that the work carried on 15 February 2022 did not address the leak, as remedial work was subsequently needed to fit the correct condensing pipe (from the boiler) to the waste pipe under the sink. The order that was raised on 7 February 2022 was given a 28-day priority by the landlord, as per its repairs policy, and the contractor attended on 15 February 2022 to carry out repairs. The time taken for the contractor to attend was therefore within the target timescale and was therefore appropriate. However, it then took a further month for the contractor to fit the correct condensing pipe and therefore stop the leak. The delay meant that the leak was ongoing and, according to the resident in her letter dated 15 March 2022 to this Service, the water was affecting the sink cupboard unit. The resident also mentioned that, along with other outstanding repairs, it was creating stress and anxiety for her. The landlord’s failure to repair the leak right first time on 15 February 2022 and the delay in rectifying the problem were therefore unreasonable. The landlord has not offered the resident financial redress for this and has therefore not put things right.
In relation to the mould behind the sink unit, the landlord’s repairs log does not mention the removal of mould and therefore it is unclear when this was first brought to the landlord’s attention. The presence of mould would only have been apparent following the removal of the sink unit’s back panel and the removal of the plasterboard under the sink. However, the landlord’s internal email of 28 September 2021 confirms that the resident had mentioned the mould to the landlord at the time the email was written. The landlord stated in its stage two letter dated 16 October 2021 that it would arrange various works, including a mould wash, to take place on 18 October 2021. The landlord’s repairs log indicates that the works ordered by the landlord on 16 October 2021 were not completed until 26 November 2021. Furthermore, the resident has stated that the mould wash was carried out between 24 and 26 November 2021.
Given that mould is one of the hazards identified in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, the landlord was expected to have arranged for the mould to be removed sooner. The removal of the mould was therefore delayed by at least four weeks, which was unreasonable given the health risks associated with mould.
In terms of the defects to the kitchen units, the resident had to wait until 13 May 2022 until the final repairs were carried out. This was approximately ten months after the contractor raised the initial order on 15 July 2021 to refit two kitchen cupboard doors and reseal around the kitchen sink. During this period, the resident experienced various problems in arranging for the work to be done, including:
1. On 11 August 2021, the contractor had failed to attend an appointment to refit the cupboard doors and reseal around the kitchen sink (the landlord had cancelled the order without notifying the resident);
2. An operative attended for a pre-booked appointment on 26 August 2021, but the resident reported that he left without carrying out any work;
3. The resident had contacted the landlord on 1 October 2021 to ask for her complaint to be escalated because the landlord had not contacted her about the kitchen repairs;
4. An operative attended for a pre-booked appointment on 18 October 2021, but the resident reported that he left without carrying out any work;
5. An operative attended for a pre-booked appointment on 24 November 2021 to carry out repairs to the kitchen units, but the resident reported that he left without carrying out any work;
6. The landlord accepted in its letter of 10 March 2022 that the previous installation of the kitchen sink unit had been carried out to a poor quality. The unit therefore had to be replaced on 18 March 2022;
7. An operative carried out works to the kitchen units on 18 March 2022, but had not completed the work;
8. The final repairs to the kitchen units (ie the replacement of a cupboard door and the plinths) was not completed until 13 May 2022.
The evidence shows that the resident experienced delays and abortive visits in relation to the kitchen unit repairs. This caused her to make several phone calls to the landlord and to lodge formal complaints about the delays and lack of communication. The resident had to live with unfinished repairs to the kitchen units for an unreasonable period of time and this caused her stress and inconvenience. The landlord has not offered the resident financial redress specifically for the delays and inconvenience in carrying out the repairs to the kitchen units, and has therefore not put things right.
The final repair reported by the resident related to a crack in the kitchen plasterwork. The landlord had raised an order on 22 November 2021 to repair the crack that had reappeared on the kitchen wall. The order had been raised on a 28-day priority code, to be completed by 20 December 2021. An appointment was booked for the contractor to attend on 10 December 2021, but the contractor did not attend. This prompted the resident to make a formal complaint on the same day.
The work to repair the crack in the kitchen wall was carried out on 23 February 2022, which was 93 calendar days after the order was raised. The landlord apologised for the delay in its complaint response letter of 18 February 2022 and said the appointment had been cancelled due to limited resources. The landlord accepted that it had failed to contact the resident beforehand to advise her that the appointment would have to be rescheduled. The landlord’s failure to contact the resident before cancelling the job meant that she had taken unnecessary time off work to provide access for the contractor. Contacting the resident beforehand would also have provided an opportunity to agree a new appointment as soon as possible.
The delay in carrying out the repair and the lack of communication with the resident before cancelling the job were unreasonable. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation, which consisted of £10 for the broken appointment and £40 for the inconvenience caused by the delay in carrying out the repair. The £50 offered by the landlord was in the range of financial redress shown in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failures where there might have been distress, inconvenience, time and trouble and delays in getting matters resolved. Given the delay in carrying out the repair and the lack of communication with the resident, it was right for the landlord to compensate the resident. The view of this Service is that the landlord’s offer was proportionate.
The resident has advised this Service that the repair to the crack on the kitchen wall was not carried out satisfactorily on 23 February 2022. As the repair took place after the end of the landlord’s complaint process, it cannot be considered in this investigation. However, a recommendation has been added for the landlord to inspect the repair and take appropriate remedial action.

The resident’s request for a replacement kitchen

Social housing landlords are required to ensure their properties meet the Decent Homes Standard. A property fails to meet the Decent Homes Standard (and therefore the Regulator of Social Housing’s ‘Home Standard’) if it lacks three or more of the following facilities:
1. A kitchen which is 20 years old or less;
2. A kitchen with adequate space and layout;
3. A bathroom which is 30 years old or less;
4. An appropriately located bathroom and WC;
5. Adequate external noise insulation; and
6. Adequate size and layout of common entrance areas for blocks of flats.
The landlord’s cyclical and planned maintenance policy says “planned maintenance covers work designed to update and replace worn-out parts of your building. It includes… replacement kitchens”.
In relation to planned works, the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states: “consideration will be given to any programmed or pending planned maintenance on the property. One of two approaches will be adopted; either a temporary repair will be made until the programme is due or the programme will be brought forward if it is uneconomic not to do so”.
This Service has a very specific role in considering whether a landlord has met its obligations to the resident in line with any relevant policies and procedures and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint. It is not the role of this Service to decide whether the kitchen at the property required replacement, but rather to determine whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of problems with the kitchen in a reasonable manner. In deciding whether a kitchen should be replaced, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take into account:
1. The condition of the kitchen;
2. Whether the kitchen meets the Decent Homes Standard (in relation to its age, space and layout).
The landlord logged a formal complaint from the resident on 6 September 2021 regarding her request for the kitchen to be upgraded. The landlord replied on 17 September 2021 and confirmed that the kitchen was scheduled for replacement in 2023/24 (the landlord stated that it had previously advised the resident of this on 6 September 2021).
The landlord visited the property in September 2021 to inspect the kitchen. The conclusion of the inspector was that there was no need to bring forward the replacement of the kitchen. The landlord also advised the resident in its stage two letter dated 4 October 2021 that its programmes ensure kitchens are maintained to the required Decent Homes Standard. Therefore, the view of this Service is that the landlord acted reasonably in responding to the resident’s request for a new kitchen because it:
1. Established the condition of the kitchen through an inspection;
2. Considered whether the kitchen should be brought forward in the programme;
3. Indicated that it had considered the replacement of the kitchen in the context of the Decent Homes Standard;
4. Provided the resident with information on when the kitchen was programmed to be replaced.

The resident’s complaints

The landlord operates a two stage complaints process, with responses due within ten working days at stage one and within 20 working days at stage two. If the landlord is unable to keep to these timeframes, it can extend the timescale at stage one or stage two of the process by up to ten working days. Any extension beyond ten working days must be agreed with the complainant.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint about damp and condensation on 17 June 2021. The landlord replied on the same day and then sent a follow-up reply on 2 July 2021. The landlord therefore replied within the appropriate timescale. The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 October 2021 to confirm its understanding that the resident wished to escalate her complaint to stage two. The landlord replied to the stage two complaint within the appropriate timescale on 16 October 2021.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 6 September 2021 regarding her request for a kitchen upgrade. The landlord responded on 17 September 2021, which was nine days after receiving the complaint. On 21 September 2021, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two. The landlord replied on 4 October 2021, which was nine days after receiving the request to escalate the complaint. Therefore, the landlord replied to the resident’s formal complaints about the kitchen upgrade within the appropriate timescales.
The resident logged a new stage one complaint on 10 December 2021 regarding a missed appointment to repair the crack in the kitchen wall. The resident phoned the landlord on 30 December 2021 to say that her stage one complaint had not been replied to in a timely manner and therefore she wanted to escalate the complaint to stage two. The landlord initially logged a new complaint on 30 December 2021, but on the next day it contacted the resident to say that the new complaint would be cancelled as the resident already had a complaint in progress. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 10 January 2022 to apologise for the delay in replying to her stage one complaint and to confirm, that because of the delay, it would be escalating the complaint to stage two. The landlord sent its stage two reply on 18 February 2022.
It was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident on 31 December 2021 that it would incorporate her complaint on 30 December 2021 with her existing complaint made on 10 December 2021. Section 1.2 of its complaint policy states: “We will normally treat simultaneous complaints from one customer as a single complaint”. However, the landlord then delayed replying to the resident’s complaint. It sent a letter on 10 January 2022 (18 working days after the complaint was made) apologising for the delay and confirming it would escalate it to stage two. The landlord’s stage two reply of 18 February 2022 then took a further 29 working days after it had agreed to escalate the complaint. The impact was that the resident had to wait 47 working days for a response to the initial complaint she submitted on 10 December 2021. The delay meant that the resident had to contact the landlord to request a response, and during the intervening period, the resident contacted this Service to say that the issues were causing her “inconvenience, stress and anxiety”. The delay in dealing with the resident’s complaint was therefore unreasonable.
Although the landlord offered compensation for the substantive issue covered in the complaint, i.e. the missed appointment, it did not offer financial redress for the delays in dealing with the resident’s complaint and the time and trouble taken by the resident to pursue a response. The landlord therefore did not put things right.

The landlord’s record keeping

The Ombudsman has faced difficulties in investigating the resident’s complaint because of the poor quality of the information held in the landlord’s repairs log. A recommendation has therefore been added for the landlord to improve the quality of the repairs information held. The problems encountered by the Ombudsman include:
1. No completion dates against some jobs, despite the jobs being well past their target date;
2. Very unclear notes against some jobs to show the actual works that were carried out.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord its handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen repairs because:
1. The landlord delayed taking action to diagnose the damp and condensation in the kitchen and provide appropriate advice to the resident on how to alleviate the problem;
2. The landlord delayed repairing the leak under the kitchen sink;
3. The landlord delayed removing the mould under the kitchen sink and did not offer appropriate redress to put things right;
4. The landlord delayed completing the repairs to the resident’s kitchen units, inconvenienced the resident through broken appointments and abortive visits, and did not offer appropriate redress to put things right.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen upgrade because the landlord inspected the kitchen to check its condition, considered its condition in the context of the Decent Homes Standard, considered whether to bring it forward in the programme and informed the resident of the year the kitchen is programmed to be replaced.
There was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling because it delayed replying to the resident’s complaint dated 10 December 2021.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to pay the resident a total of £750, made up as follows:
1. £100 for the delay in responding to the damp and condensation;
2. £100 for the delay in repairing the leak and removing the associated mould;
3. £500 for the delays in repairing the kitchen units;
4. £50 for the delays in complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should reoffer the resident the £50 for the broken appointment in December 2021, if this has not already been paid.
It is recommended that the landlord improves the quality of its repairs information, so that the work carried out in relation to each order and the date completed are clearly shown.
The landlord should reinspect the repair carried out to the cracked kitchen wall and take appropriate remedial action.