North Tyneside Council (202301137)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301137

North Tyneside Council

6 October 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 upgrade works to the resident’s kitchen.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in the property with her children. The resident has told this service that one of her children has a disability. The landlord has reported to this service that it is unaware of any vulnerabilities within the resident’s household.
3. On 22 June 2022, the landlord arranged for a kitchen surveyor to attend the resident’s property, so that she could select fittings and fixtures for a kitchen upgrade due to be carried out as part of a planned maintenance scheme. During the appointment, the kitchen surveyor recorded the resident’s choices for the kitchen cabinets, doors, cabinet handles and countertops. The kitchen surveyor also noted the resident’s choices for the type of kitchen sink, taps, tiling, and flooring she wanted as part of the kitchen upgrade.
4. On 16 February 2023, the landlord’s contractor began works to upgrade the resident’s kitchen. However, between 17 February 2023 and 23 February 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that:
   1. she was unhappy the electrical sockets in the kitchen had been moved to a different area within the kitchen.
   2. her fridge freezer had been left unplugged by workmen.
   3. the insulator switch previously housed in a lower cupboard, had been moved to sit above a kitchen countertop.
   4. no protective film had been put down by the contractor to protect her carpets from the mess the upgrade works had produced.
   5. the incorrect kitchen cabinet doors had been installed.
   6. the contractor had failed to fit a kitchen cabinet to the wall next to her cooker, preventing her from installing a cooker hood extractor fan she had paid for separately.
   7. she had chosen black kitchen countertops, but a different colour was being installed.
5. The resident then raised a complaint with the landlord on 24 February 2023. She reiterated the points she had reported in the days leading up to her complaint, adding thather property had been left without electricity for eight hours, and that multiple kitchen cabinet doors had been damaged on installation. The resident expressed that the entire situation was affecting her mental health. As a resolution to her complaint, she wanted the landlord to fit the kitchen cabinet to the wall next to her cooker, and she wanted the kitchen countertops changed to black, as agreed during the kitchen design appointment.
6. Following her complaint, on 27 February 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to say that she did not want any further works to take place in her kitchen until her complaint had been resolved.
7. On 7 March 2023, the landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident. In this it:
   1. explained that safety regulations changed regularly, therefore, it was obliged to move electrical sockets to comply with the regulations currently in place.
   2. confirmed the choices she had selected during the design appointment matched the fittings and fixtures that were being installed within her kitchen.
   3. explained that the designs she had been shown during her kitchen design appointment were for illustration purposes only and not an exact colour of the products.
   4. assured the resident that if there was any damage to any of the fittings and fixtures, these would be inspected and replaced if necessary.
   5. explained that due to fire safety regulations, it could not fit a kitchen cabinet to the wall next to her cooker without there being an extractor fan in place first.
   6. explained that the electricity supply was switched off to rewire the kitchen and that the resident had been informed of this prior to the work commencing.
8. The landlord highlighted that works to the resident’s kitchen were incomplete and had been stopped based on the resident’s request. It encouraged her to get in touch so that it could arrange a suitable date for the works to be finished. The landlord also clarified that once the resident had fitted the cooker hood with extractor fan, it would return to fit the kitchen cabinet to the wall next to it.
9. On 13 March 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaints process. She stated that the kitchen cabinet doors, countertops and handles that were being fitted within her kitchen, were all incorrect. The resident acknowledged that she had signed a form during the kitchen design appointment to confirm she was happy with the choices she had made but explained that at the time of signing the form it was blank, suggesting that the landlord had filled the choices in at a later date.
10. The landlord sent its stage two complaint response to the resident on 10 April 2023. It explained that the process when carrying out kitchen design appointments was for the kitchen surveyor to discuss and record residents’ choices on a customer choice sheet. Residents are then asked to sign the customer choice sheet to confirm that they are happy with the selections recorded on the sheet. It stated that it had found no evidence to suggest the kitchen surveyor veered away from this process, and that it had found no evidence to support her assertion that the form had been filled in by the landlord at a later date. The landlord encouraged the resident to get in touch so that it could complete the outstanding works to her kitchen.
11. On the same day, the resident challenged the landlord’s stage two complaint response, stating that it had failed to provide her with dated and signed paperwork that would evidence that she had made the choices recorded during the kitchen design appointment. The landlord sent its stage three complaint response to the resident on 5 May 2023. In this it reiterated its stance set out at stage one and two of its complaints process, and advised the resident that her complaint was not upheld.
12. The resident contacted this service on 1 June 2023, to ask for the complaint to be investigated. She told this service that she disagreed with the landlord’s response and that she wanted the landlord to admit that it had made a mistake when ordering the fixtures and fittings for her kitchen upgrade, and for it to install the choices she had made.

Scope of investigation

13. As part of the resident’s complaint, she has said that the landlord’s actions during the handling of upgrade works to her kitchen, has affected her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her mental health. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to establish if there is a direct connection between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health. Matters such as this are better suited to a court or liability insurer to decide as the courts have different powers to the Ombudsman. The courts can call on medical expert witnesses and award damages in a different way to the Ombudsman. However, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of any errors by the landlord, as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her mental health.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

14. The resident’s occupancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the property in good repair. Additionally, the resident’s occupancy agreement sets out that the landlord has the right to enter the resident’s property to carry out maintenance, renewal, repairs, or improvements, and that she must allow access for these reasons.

The landlord’s handling of upgrade works to the resident’s kitchen.

15. The landlord’s records show that the resident signed a ‘customer choice sheet’ which confirmed that she selected the following fittings and fixtures as part of the kitchen upgrade:
    1. hacienda grey driftwood with white cabinet – for the kitchen cabinets and doors
    2. dark ash – for the kitchen countertops
    3. HPK226, hacienda only – for the kitchen cabinet handles.
16. These selections were from a supplier named Symphony, which the landlord has evidenced was the supplier it was using at the time of ordering the resident’s kitchen. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that as the fittings and fixtures being installed into the resident’s kitchen, matched the selections signed for by the resident on the customer choice sheet, the kitchen being installed into the resident’s property was correct.
17. The landlord’s internal records confirm that a kitchen surveyor attended the resident’s property on 22 June 2022. However, the resident has told this service that she cannot recall the month or date the kitchen design appointment took place. She has also told this service that she was asked to select options from a different supplier named JTC Furniture Group, and she has supplied a copy of the pamphlet she states she was asked to choose from. The resident has explained that initially contractors attended her property to take measurements of her kitchen. A few days later a kitchen surveyor attended her property to discuss kitchen design options and noted her choices mentally. The resident states that the kitchen surveyor returned on another day as they had forgotten to get her signature, and it was at this point she was asked to sign a blank customer choice sheet. The Ombudsman has seen no record of the resident providing this level of detail to the landlord in the correspondence and formal complaints that were submitted, therefore, the Ombudsman cannot assess or provide comment on whether the landlord took the appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s claims.
18. That said, the landlord has provided this Service with a copy of the kitchen order it submitted on 19 July 2022, which confirms that the supplier of the resident’s upgraded kitchen was Symphony. It has also provided evidence to confirm that it started using JTC Furniture Group in June 2023, as part of a different kitchen upgrade scheme in a different location. The Ombudsman also notes the landlord outlined to the resident the process it followed when carrying out kitchen design appointments and had found no evidence to suggest this had not been followed. The Ombudsman considers this a reasonable response by the landlord, as without the resident’s recollection of the dates the kitchen surveyor attended her property, or evidence of her signature on a customer choice sheet for fittings and fixtures from JTC Furniture Group, the landlord would have been limited in its ability to investigate the resident’s claims about the use of a different supplier any further.
19. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident may have been under the impression that she had selected different fixtures and fittings for the kitchen. However, it is important to highlight that the Ombudsman is an impartial service which can only base its decisions on the evidence available. Where there are conflicting accounts of what happened, with insufficient documentary evidence to support what happened, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord or require it to take action to put right its failure.
20. The resident highlighted several other grievances with the landlord, including that its contractors had not protected her carpets whilst carrying out their works, her fridge freezer had been left unplugged at the end of the day, that she had been without an electricity supply for 8 hours, and that the electrical sockets had been moved around unnecessarily. The landlord’s records show that the resident signed a disclaimer and schedule of works to confirm that she understood the kitchen upgrade works would be disruptive and that an element of cleaning would be required by the resident once the works had finished. The disclaimer and schedule of works also advised that it was the resident’s responsibility to check appliances were plugged in at the end of the day, and that due to the light fittings and sockets being upgraded, there would be some disruption to the electricity supply during this time. As such, it was appropriate for the landlord to point out to the resident that she had been forewarned of these matters prior to the commencement of works, and that due to safety regulations, some sockets needed to be moved during the kitchen upgrade.
21. The Ombudsman recognises that works to upgrade a kitchen are extensive, and during the process, a degree of disruption and mess will occur. In accordance with its repair responsibilities, the landlord would be expected to adhere to all electrical and fire safety regulations and complete the kitchen upgrade works to a good standard. It would also be expected to clear up any significant mess made afterwards. Once the resident allows the landlord to complete the outstanding upgrade works to her kitchen, she can raise any issues relating to the standard of workmanship or the condition her property has been left in, with the landlord. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s response to the issues raised, she can raise the matter as a separate complaint through the landlord’s complaints process. The resident may be able to refer this complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
22. The resident has complained about the kitchen cabinet due to be erected on the wall next to the cooker, and damaged and missing kitchen cabinet doors. The landlord’s stage one complaint response appropriately explained that due to fire safety regulations, it could not erect the kitchen cabinet until an extractor fan was in place. It also appropriately reassured the resident that once the extractor fan had been installed, it would return to erect the kitchen cabinet, and it would inspect any damaged kitchen cabinets and replace them where necessary. This was a reasonable response by the landlord as it set out how it would resolve the issues the resident had raised whilst explaining why this could not be done immediately for reasons of practicality.
23. The resident has highlighted to this Service that she has been without use of her kitchen for seven months, which has had a significant impact on her child with a disability. She also expressed to the landlord that the dispute over her kitchen design choices was causing her anxiety. While the Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s frustration regarding the design of her kitchen, in line with its repair responsibilities, the landlord is required to ensure the kitchen is in good repair and functional; it is not obliged to install kitchen parts that reflect the resident’s personal preferences. Although it is good practice to provide residents with choices where possible, it was reasonable that the landlord did not agree to reorder the fittings and fixtures for the resident’s kitchen on aesthetic grounds, as it was not obliged to do so. Social landlords have limited resources which they are expected to manage effectively for the benefit of all residents. The landlord was entitled to conclude that it would not be cost effective to reorder the resident’s fixtures and fittings rather than using the fixtures and fittings which had already been provided.
24. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged how the situation had made the resident feel and explained that it had not intended to cause her any anxiety. The Ombudsman also notes that in all three of the landlord’s complaint responses, the landlord encouraged the resident to contact its site manager to arrange an assessment of the works that remained outstanding. It also confirmed that missing or damaged items would be inspected and replaced. As such, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord reasonably attempted to complete the upgrade works to the resident’s kitchen in line with its repair obligations.
25. Overall, the landlord’s handling of upgrade works to the resident’s kitchen was acceptable and there was no maladministration in this regard. The Ombudsman will however, make a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident to arrange for the outstanding works to her kitchen to be completed, if the resident allows access for this to be done. It may also wish to discuss with the resident whether she would consider purchasing the fittings and fixtures she prefers if it agrees to supply the labour to have them fitted. A recommendation will also be made for the landlord to discuss with the resident whether there are any vulnerabilities within the household that it should be aware of, and update its records to reflect these, if necessary.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of upgrade works to the resident’s kitchen.

Recommendations

27. The landlord should contact the resident to arrange for the outstanding works to her kitchen to be completed, if the resident allows access for this to be done. It may also wish to discuss with the resident whether she would consider purchasing the fittings and fixtures she prefers if it agrees to supply the labour to have them fitted.
28. The landlord should discuss with the resident whether there are any vulnerabilities within the household that it should be aware of, and update its records to reflect these, if necessary.