Southwark Council (202003725)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003725

Southwark Council

11 May 2021

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has had a secure tenancy with the landlord since 2004. The property is a one-bedroom bungalow. The landlord is a local authority. The Right to Manage lets tenants and leaseholders take over certain management responsibilities from their landlord; in this case there is a Tenant Management Organisation (the TMO) which is run by a board composed of residents from the estate for the mutual benefit of all residents.
The landlord is ultimately responsible for the actions of the TMO. A resident’s tenancy rights are not affected by the establishment of a TMO; they have the same rights as if they were under the landlord’s management, including right to repair and those with a secure tenancy remain secure tenants of the landlord.
The TMO’s repair policy says that, under the management agreement, its responsibility was for repair, not replacement. The landlord was responsible for replacement. Wherever possible, they will adopt the same service procedures as the landlord for each service they are contracted to deliver. Residents should report repairs by telephone, email or in person; if the repair is the landlord’s responsibility, they will signpost the resident to it. It is the responsibility of the resident to report defects as soon as possible and they will be expected to give a description of the defect to be remedied and the urgency of the problem. Defects will normally be pre inspected and post-inspected.
The repair policy says there are three main priority categories for repairs: emergency; urgent and non-urgent/medium term repairs which should be completed within 20 working days. Residents must allow contractors access to inspect and complete repairs. Residents will be contacted by the contractor to arrange access or be advised to contact the contractors to arrange an appointment themselves.
The repair policy says that the TMO is responsible for repairs including plumbing (including stopcocks), cupboards and kitchen units and internal fittings and fixtures. While floors are not mentioned specifically it is reasonable to presume that they are included here as the TMO carried out repairs to the kitchen floor.
The TMO has a three-stage complaints procedure:
1. Stage one: a complaint can be made to the estate manager and the complaint will be acknowledged within three working days. They aim to investigate the and respond within ten working days.
2. Stage two: an escalation can be made to the Chair of the TMO. The Chair will acknowledge receipt within three working days and aims to send a full response within ten working days.
3. Stage three: if the complainant is not satisfied with the response from the Chair, they may complain to the Board. If the complainant is still not satisfied, he or she has the right to appeal to the landlord, addressing their complaint to its complaint department and following its complaint procedure.
The landlord has a two–stage formal complaints procedure. At stage one it aims to respond within 15 working days at stage one and 25 working days at stage two.
On 23 March 2020 the UK government announced a national lockdown. This was eased from June 2020 when schools and non-essential retail outlets re-opened. The government introduced new restrictions from 22 September 2020 and a second full national lockdown was announced on 31 October 2020 that came into effect from 5 November 2020. While restrictions were lifted slightly over Christmas, there was a new national lockdown from 6 January 2021.
The landlord introduced a “critical repairs service” on 24 March 2020. The landlord announced that from 21 April 2021 it was resuming repairs that it knew about and would take on new repairs from 21 June 2021.

Summary of events

On 7 February 2019 the resident reported “defective bitumen” in the kitchen to the TMO who noted this should be attended to by 14 February 2019.
On 12 December 2019 the resident told the TMO that there was still a hole in his kitchen floor which he had previously reported in March 2018 and had not been addressed. He added that contractors had visited three times but no action had been taken. In response the TMO told the resident he had failed to contact the contractors, as he said he would, to arrange access and gave him a number to contact.
On 19 December 2019 the resident told the TMO that the contractors had agreed to attend from 6 to 10 January 2020. He said he had agreed the flooring with the contractors and would discuss further with them the style of kitchen units and worktop based on the TMO’s advised budget.
On 8 January 2020 the resident told the TMO that they did not understand the situation at the property. He said he wanted to make a formal complaint and was seeking the following:
1. An inspection of the property to be carried out by a qualified surveyor who can provide a schedule of works for the required repairs.
2. An agreed schedule of works.
3. Eradication of pests and vermin-proofing.
On 14 January 2020 the landlord’s contractors lifted the old floor in the kitchen and laid a new one. The contractors also carried out additional work at the request of the resident (capping off a gas pipe and adding a connection to allow for a new gas cooker to be fitted; they also moved a cupboard to a new location within the kitchen to facilitate space for white goods to be fitted. The contractors noted that this new location meant that a drawer would not be able to be opened as the washing machine was in the way and noted the resident “acknowledged this”).
On 16 January 2020 the TMO told the resident it understood there were no outstanding repairs at the property but, if he believed there were, they would inspect the property on 20 January 2020.
On 20 January 2020 the TMO inspected the property. They wrote to the resident the same day saying the contractor was having a problem matching the colour of a new plinth at the base of a kitchen unit with existing plinths and asked if a white plinth would be acceptable. They also said the contractors needed to finish the tiling and put the panels behind the unit as previously discussed. The TMO also said that the contractor was happy to re‑install the wooden cover of the cabinet (although the way it had been done previously had been at the resident’s request). The TMO asked the resident to confirm when he would be available.
On 24 January 2020 the TMO asked the resident for dates when he could give access to the contractor.
On 30 January 2020 the resident raised a formal complaint with the TMO. He said he had complained on 20 January 2020 but no response was given. He explained he had had no heating or hot water for two weeks and the TMO had denied a request to have a surveyor inspect his kitchen.
On 4 February 2020 a surveyor carried out a visual inspection of the kitchen.
On 5 February 2020 the TMO responded to the resident. The main points were:
1. In the resident’s email of 19 December 2019, he had referred to “the style of kitchen”. The TMO said their understanding was that there was hole in the kitchen floor and he had not reported any defects with the kitchen units or work tops. The kitchen had been newly installed in June 2010.
2. The contractor did not find a hole in the kitchen floor; nor did the resident mention one.
3. At a visit to the property by the TMO on 20 January 2020, it emerged that the contractor had carried out some works which were not part of what the TMO had agreed with them and the resident was unhappy with those additional works.
4. They would arrange for the plinth to be put back (although they nor the contractor knew how that went missing in the first place) and for missing back panels in the unit under the sink to be put back.
5. They had asked the contractor about the extra work it had carried out and they had said the resident had asked them to do some work and they had agreed. The contractors added they would re-do it if he was not satisfied.
6. They had asked the contractors if they could colour match the new plinth.
7. On 20 and 24 January 2020 they had asked the resident to give access for the work to be completed.
8. They had asked a surveyor to inspect the kitchen and report back on the work required.
9. Heating and hot water was not the responsibility of the TMO, but the landlord. They had contacted the landlord on his behalf.
10. Pest control was also the responsibility of the landlord and the TMO suggested the resident contact it.
On 20 February 2020 the resident provided the TMO with photos of his kitchen and said he found the response to his complaint difficult to understand. They responded the following day saying they would discuss the photos with the contractor and respond by 3 March 2020.
On 25 February 2020 the resident complained to the TMO that it had failed to respond to his complaint of 20 January 2020 and asked when they would do so.
On 4 March 2020 the resident asked the landlord to consider his complaint on various grounds including that he had not had any indication that the repairs would be carried out; he only had use of one-and-a-half cupboards in the kitchen; most of his appliances were stored in the bedroom; and he did not have full use of the kitchen. He said the TMO had not followed its complaint policy and he also wanted to know why his neighbours’ kitchens had been fitted with “far superior quality items” compared to his.
On the same day the TMO wrote to the resident with the outcome of the surveyor’s report. It noted the following:
1. Base cabinets were found to be ill-fitted, where the only drawer in the kitchen did not open fully to allow access to the contents. Recommendation: to re‑articulate the cabinets so that they fitted correctly with the resident’s existing appliances. The TMO said the contractors had previously agreed to return to do this. The TMO also confirmed it would supply and fit another base unit.
2. A recommendation that a new back panel was fitted to the sink unit to enable ease of access to stop cocks. The TMO said they had already offered to do this work.
3. Work tops were found to be ill-fitted and damaged along the front edges. The TMO confirmed they would replace the worktops and noted they would remove and replace a row of tiles when fitting the new worktops.
4. A recommendation to supply and fit a new plinth to match the others. The TMO noted it had previously offered to do this.
5. A recommendation to fill in and sand a damaged corner of a built-in cupboard (previously damaged by contractors).
The TMO asked the resident to confirm when it would be convenient to carry out this work.
On 7 May 2020 the landlord issued its final response under its formal complaints procedure to the resident. Its main findings were:
1. The estate manager at the TMO had tried to resolve the complaint and provide information on what repairs were required. It agreed with the works set out in the surveyor report which was sent to the resident on 4 March 2020 and it could see that the estate manager had made attempts to confirm that the resident was happy with the proposed works and requested permission for the works to go ahead. The landlord said it was for those reasons that it did not believe that compensation for the delay was warranted.
2. Pest control was an issue for the local authority and gave contact details.
3. The surveyor report had noted that current kitchen units should be refitted; new worktops should be fitted and the resident would have a choice of those; and the surveyor had agreed that backs should be fitted to all cupboards and a plinth should be added to a cupboard.
4. Additional tiling would only be carried out if required and would be considered during an inspection; the landlord recommended an inspection would take place to see if old, capped pipes from the boiler installation could be removed; and the landlord could not recommend that a large kitchen unit be removed as kitchens had to meet a standard number of kitchen units.
5. The landlord agreed that the stopcock should be accessible; however, said a panel might be placed over the stopcock if needed.
6. It would consider if the kitchen floor required re-levelling; however, as the issue raised concerned a singe hole in the floor, it did not see that this would be necessary. It would consider if the resident’s own flooring be installed in the hall.
7. It explained it might not be able to accommodate the resident’s request that different contractors were used as they were under contract to carry out this work.
8. It would address the issue of any electrical sockets that were not working.
9. The landlord was unable to detail the reasons why the resident’s neighbours’ kitchens were upgraded or were different to his own as this would be deemed a breach of information. It explained that prior property history or circumstances of other residents could not be shared.
10. It explained that kitchen renewals were carried out under a Major Works programme and each kitchen was set to a specific layout/standard unless the tenant had additional accessibility needs. The landlord said that there was no need to renew the whole kitchen but to carry out repairs only.
11. The landlord said the outstanding repairs would not be carried out until lockdown was eased.
12. It set out the items to be inspected: exposed pipework; kitchen and hallway floor; tiling near sink and cooker; and a post-work inspection.
13. It also set out the outstanding repairs: kitchen units to be refitted but not replaced. Only one new base unit may be required. Any units with doors are to have replacement doors; new worktop; back panels fitted to all units; new plinth for unit and electrical socket.
The landlord partly upheld the complaint. It said that there had been failure to follow aspects of the complaints procedure as the resident had not been given the right of escalation. It said, as a gesture of goodwill, it would cover an invoice for £367.20 which was for the gas cooker installation and cupboard relocation and were outside the landlord’s responsibility. It said it would not be offering further compensation. In relation to the repairs aspect of the complaint, the landlord said that effort had been made to assess the required repairs of the property but it could not see that he had provided his reasons for disagreeing prior to this complaint review, which had prolonged the situation. The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On 7 May 2020 the TMO approved the payment of £367.20 to the contractor.
On 21 May 2020 the TMO told the resident that their contractor would be contacting him early the following week to carry out the repairs and inspection as recommended by the landlord.
On 1 June 2020 the resident told the TMO that the outstanding work to the kitchen had yet to be completed and asked for a completion date and dates of when the work (as details in the landlord’s final response) would be carried out. He also asked them to revise the compensation offered to him. The TMO acknowledged this correspondence the following day and said they would respond by 8 June 2020.
On 17 August 2020 there was an inspection of the property and a list of work was drawn up that was to be completed by the TMO relating to kitchen units, worktops, drawers and cupboards.
On 8 June 2020 the TMO told the resident that they would arrange for another contractor and the landlord’s technical officer to inspect and agree the work that needed to be carried out by the landlord and/or the TMO. They said they were waiting for the technical officer to say when they were available. The TMO added that their contractor was ready to attend but said that, due to covid-19, the landlord’s services had been reduced to emergencies only so they might not be able to attend straight away. They added that, as such, they could not as yet give him dates of visits and completion dates. They also said they would contact pest control on his behalf, even though it was not their responsibility to do so. Turning to compensation, the TMO said that it was not aware he was due compensation, it had paid an invoice of works as a goodwill gesture.
On 1 September 2020 the TMO offered the resident a new kitchen which he accepted on 24 September 2020.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, he said that no work had been completed to the kitchen. He said the outcome he was seeking was for the TMO to have a consistent approach to responding to repairs.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen

The TMO has a responsibility to repair kitchen cupboards, units and flooring. It is not disputed that the resident reported a repair required to the floor early in 2018 but did not contact the contractor to carry out the repair (paragraph 10). It was appropriate for the TMO to ask the resident to arrange the appointment with the contractor as this is in line with its repair policy (paragraph 4).
The evidence shows that the resident asked the contractor to carry out further work than what was expected when they attended on 14 January 2020. This became known to the TMO when they spoke to the contractor following an inspection at the property on 20 January 2020 (paragraph 16).
It was reasonable for the TMO to subsequently attend the property to ascertain what works were required to the kitchen and then write to the resident to confirm that. Following a complaint from the resident (paragraph 18), the TMO took appropriate action by obtaining a surveyor’s opinion of the work required to the kitchen (paragraph 19). This was also the outcome required by the resident (paragraph 13).
The TMO wrote to the resident with the outcome of the surveyor’s inspection in March 2020 and confirmed that the contractors would carry out the recommended work (paragraph 24). That was appropriate action by the TMO. While they had already said the contractors would do much of that work, it took on board the opinion of the expert surveyor and confirmed that all recommended work would be completed.
In the final response the landlord confirmed that the outstanding repairs would not be carried out until the lockdown eased. While it is appreciated that it must have been frustrating for the resident and his son to live with an unfinished kitchen, that was a reasonable position for the landlord to take given only emergency repairs were carried out during periods of lockdown.
The TMO’s responses to the repair issues raised by the resident were reasonable. They were unaware that repairs were outstanding until an inspection of the property on 20 January 2020 and by 5 February 2020 had agreed the outstanding work. It reiterated that it would carry out the outstanding repairs following a surveyor’s visit in early March 2020. There were subsequent delays due to the pandemic. We have not seen the TMO’s repair procedures that the TMO put in place during the pandemic; the landlord carried out a critical repairs service only (paragraph 9). It is reasonable to presume that the TMO had similar programme for emergency repairs only in line with most social housing landlords. There is no evidence that the TMO has acted unreasonably or inappropriately in responding to the resident’s kitchen repairs.
We note that later last year the TMO offered a new kitchen to the resident on the basis of the number of repairs outstanding, which he accepted. There is no evidence to suggest that the TMO’s earlier decision to repair, rather than renew the kitchen, was unreasonable as it was in line with the expert view of the surveyor.
The landlord is under no obligation to explain the difference between the layout and quality of fixtures and fittings in different properties. Therefore, its response to the resident’s query about this was reasonable (paragraph 26).

Complaint handling

In the landlord’s complaint response, it recognised that the TMO had failed to follow aspects of the complaints procedure. The resident’s complaint of 8 January 2020 prompted a response from the TMO on 14 January 2020, his second complaint of 30 January 2020 prompted a response on 5 February 2020. Both these responses were within the timescales of the complaints procedure. However, the TMO’s complaint handling was not appropriate because neither complaint was acknowledged nor did they explain how the complaint could be escalated if the resident remained dissatisfied in line with their complaint procedures (paragraph 6).
The resident escalated his complaint to the landlord in March 2020 (paragraph 23). The landlord responded on 7 May 2020. This is outside the timescales set on in its complaint procedures (paragraph 26). The evidence suggests that the landlord did not take his complaint through both stages of their complaint procedures. Given that he had already exhausted the TMO’s complaints procedures, that was reasonable and meant that the resident could approach this Service more quickly. The landlord’s handling of the complaint was also not appropriate as it did not adhere to the timescales set out in its complaint procedure (paragraph 7).
In recognition of the complaint handling failings of the TMO, the landlord said the TMO would cover the cost of the work that was the resident’s responsibility to pay (the additional work that the contractors carried out in January 2020). The TMO paid this invoice of £367.20 in May 2020 (paragraph 28). While the landlord did not recognise its own delay in issuing its complaint response, the redress offered was adequate to cover the inconvenience and distress caused by both the complaint handling failures of both the landlord and the TMO.
Had the resident followed the TMO’s and landlord’s complaint procedure in full he would have had to have gone through five separate stages. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says that a landlord’s complaint procedure should comprise two stages. This ensures that residents have the opportunity to challenge any decision by correcting errors or sharing concerns via an appeals process. The Ombudsman does not believe that a third stage is necessary and a process with more than three stages is not acceptable under any circumstances in the Ombudsman’s view. We have made a recommendation for the TMO, in conjunction with the landlord, to consider making amendments to its complaint procedures so that they are aligned with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to complaint handling.

Reasons

The TMO’s response to the reports of repairs was reasonable. It inspected the property and subsequently obtained a surveyor’s view on the repairs required. While there were subsequent, unavoidable delays due to the pandemic, there is no evidence that the TMO has acted unreasonably or inappropriately.
There were service failings in both the TMO and landlord’s complaint handling. The TMO’s failure to be explicit about when a response was a complaint response and failure to explain how to escalate the complaint and delays by the landlord. The landlord has made a goodwill gesture to the resident which was proportionate and appropriate redress.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the TMO take the following action:
1. Write to the resident setting out the timescales for when the new kitchen will be installed.
2. Review their complaint procedure, in conjunction with the landlord, so that it is aligned with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.