Longhurst Group Limited (202001481)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001481

Longhurst Group Limited

23 December 2020

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 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 concerns raised in respect of the installation of a new kitchen.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident became an assured tenant of the landlord in June 2009.
3. The landlord has a complaints policy which sets out a one stage formal process and does not provide an appeals or second stage.
4. The landlord has a compensation policy which sets out examples of when compensation should be paid and a scale of compensation amounts for different circumstances.
5. In June 2019 the landlord notified the resident of its plans to replace her kitchen as part of its refurbishment plans.
6. The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 July 2019 advising that the agreed refurbishment of the kitchen would begin on 8 August 2019 and provided instructions on what it required her to do in preparation.

Summary of Events

7. The resident has said that she contacted the landlord on 6 August 2019 as she had been expecting a visit to occur within the week prior to the work beginning to provide a key for access to her property. She has said that she was not made aware of any problems and it was agreed for the key to be collected the following morning.
8. The landlord contacted the resident on 7 August 2019 and advised that the work would not begin on 8 August 2019 as a survey needed to be done. The landlord gave the resident contact details to arrange the survey which she says was arranged for 9 August 2019.
9. The landlord has said that the kitchen replacement was rebooked to begin on 19 August 2019. It said that it had agreed to try and complete the works sooner to make up for the previous delay but it was unable to do this. The landlord has said that the work was completed on 2 September 2019.
10. While the work was ongoing the resident reported a number of incidents including her door being left open at the end of the day, dust sheets not being used and her electricity not working. The landlord responded to each issue as it was reported. On 28 August 2019 the resident reported that the decorator had not arrived in the morning as agreed which delayed the installation of the flooring.
11. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 4 November 2019 about the problems she had reported during the installation of her kitchen.
12. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 8 November 2019 and said a response would be provided within 30 days.
13. The resident sent further information to the landlord on 14 November 2019 saying she had received a letter on 8 November 2019 advising of a kitchen inspection to take place on 14 November 2019. However, she said that no one had attended the appointment and was unhappy that her time had been wasted.
14. The landlord sent holding letters to the resident on 5 December 2019, 7 January 2020, 6 February 2020 and 2 March 2020.
15. The landlord issued its formal complaint response on 9 April 2020 and accepted that there had been delays and issues during the installation of the kitchen. It apologised for this and offered £150 compensation, comprised of £50 for the issues during the kitchen installation and £100 for the complaint handling.
16. The landlord said that the delay in the work starting was caused by a missing asbestos report and that although it had tried to complete the work faster than seven days to make up for this it had been unable to due to staff sickness.
17. It acknowledged the seriousness of the resident’s door being left open and it had addressed the matter with the engineers who it believed had apologised to the resident for this. It also said that following this incident the door was checked every day to ensure it did not happen again.
18. In regard to the decorators not attending as agreed, the landlord said that it had found that the sub-contractor had not prioritised their work load that day which meant they attended in the afternoon and not the morning.
19. The landlord also apologised for the engineers using the resident’s toilet and said it had raised this with the site manager.
20. The landlord said that as a learning point it had implemented a new process so that the asbestos surveys are completed at the same time as the kitchen design surveys. The landlord also provided referral details to the Housing Ombudsman.
21. The resident contacted the landlord in May 2020 via its web portal to say that she was not satisfied with the complaint response as not all of her questions had been answered, specifically why a number of things had happened.
22. The landlord entered into further contact with the resident and asked for clarification as to what she felt had been missed and said it would see if there was any further information it could provide.
23. The resident forwarded a list of questions to the landlord on 27 May 2020 saying she felt that they had not been answered by the complaint response. Many of the questions raised were about why things had happened, why people she spoke to were unaware of the incidents and who was accountable and what had been done about the incidents.
24. The landlord responded on 28 May 2020 and said that it had tried to give as much information as it could in respect of her complaint and provided further information in respect of the resident’s questions.
25. The landlord said that it felt it had addressed the start date issue in its complaint response and again apologised for the delay. It also felt it had addressed the matter of her home being left unlocked and said that it was an error made by the Contracts Site Manager.
26. The landlord said that it understood that the resident had discussed the issue of the contractors not signing in or out with the contractors directly at the time and that training had been provided in response to ensure all contractors were aware of the procedure.
27. The landlord said that it was aware that dust sheets were not used on the first day and apologised for this and it understood that they had been used from that point onwards.
28. The landlord said that the resident was without water and electrics for part of the evening only and that the kitchen sockets were left off as the electric works had not been completed.
29. The landlord also said that it had attempted to arrange for an aftercare visit but that the resident had not wanted to make an appointment and said that if she now wanted to do this it could be arranged.
30. The resident has now brought the matter to the Housing Ombudsman for determination as she feels that the landlord has not answered all of her questions.

Assessment and findings

31. The resident has said that she is unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response as it had failed to answer all of her questions about the incidents that occurred when her kitchen was being replaced.
32. The landlord has said that it has tried to respond to the questions and has provided all the information that it has about the incident.
33. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider whether there has been any service failure in the landlord’s handling of an issue and how it has dealt with a resident’s complaint.
34. In this case the Ombudsman has noted that the majority of the resident’s questions are about why the incidents occurred or why people she spoke to were unaware of them. The resident has also asked questions about who is responsible for incidents such as her property being left unlocked and what has been done to hold the individuals accountable.
35. Whilst the Ombudsman understands why the resident is seeking answers to her questions, the Ombudsman considers that it is not always possible for a landlord to establish why an incident has occurred or why an individual might not know something. In such cases the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should focus on putting the matter right, learning from any issues it has identified and taking any actions needed to reduce the likelihood of similar issues arising in the future.
36. In this case the Ombudsman considers that this is what the landlord has done, as it has apologised for the incidents that occurred and said that steps were taken to prevent further issues such as checking to ensure the resident’s property was locked each evening. The Ombudsman has not seen anything to suggest there were any further security incidents.
37. The landlord has also offered the resident £50 compensation in respect of the issues experienced during the kitchen installation and £100 compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint.
38. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s compensation policy and noted that the amount offered falls within its categorisation of service failure with some but not significant impact to the resident.
39. The Ombudsman considers it was reasonable for the landlord to have used this banding in its compensation policy as, while there was service failure identified, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to show there was significant impact as a result.
40. Consequently, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s apology and compensation offer reasonably resolves the complaint raised.
41. In respect of the resident’s questions regarding who was accountable for the incidents and what had been done as a result, the Ombudsman would not expect a landlord to necessarily provide detailed information regarding all these questions. This is because much of this sort of information would likely be considered personal and therefore should not be shared under data protection rules.
42. Having considered the questions that the resident has said have not been addressed, the main issue that the Ombudsman considers has not been addressed is the matter of the kitchen being checked post installation.
43. The landlord has said that it tried to arrange an appointment but that the resident declined this. However, the resident has said that she received a letter with an appointment for this but that no one showed up.
44. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence such as contact records from the landlord to show that an offer was made and declined. The resident has said that she has a letter advising of the appointment, however this service has not seen this.
45. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord was made aware of the letter that the resident said she had received, but does not appear to have taken the opportunity to investigate and respond to this point. The Ombudsman does consider that the landlord should have reasonably looked into this matter in light of the resident’s comments, however has not made a finding of service failure on this point as the landlord had taken action to address the issue by offering to arrange a new appointment .
46. It should be noted that in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, the landlord offers £10 for a missed appointment. However, in this case, the Ombudsman considers that the total award of £150 compensation offered by the landlord would reasonably reflect the inconvenience caused by this.

Determination (decision)

47. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman considers that the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress which resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of concerns raised in respect of the installation of a new kitchen.

Reasons

48. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord has provided responses to the resident with the focus of resolving the issues by offering apologies, explanation, and compensation. It has recognised that there were some failings in service in this case and has made an offer of redress which the Ombudsman considers to be reasonable in the circumstances of this case.
49. The Ombudsman notes the landlords offer of compensation was in line with its compensation policy and is in line with what this service would have awarded in similar cases.
50. The Ombudsman considers that it was not unreasonable for the landlord to not answer all of the resident’s questions. This was because many of the questions related to why something had happened, which is not always possible for a landlord to determine except that it was likely to be human error. Many of the other questions asked required answers about the landlord’s staff and would-be information protected by data protection requirements.