One Vision Housing Limited (202124096)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124096

One Vision Housing Limited

29 September 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Letting the property with an adapted bathroom.
2. The resident’s reports of an unusable kitchen when he moved in.
3. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant who lives in a 1 bedroom flat. The tenancy began on 6 January 2021.
The landlord has a complaint, appeals and feedback policy. In this policy it says that both stage 1 and stage 2 complaint stages will usually be responded to within 10 working days and if more time is required it will let the resident know.
Section 5.6 of the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code says that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
The landlord has a void standard which says that:
1. Its properties will be relet safe, clean, and secure.
2. In relation to bathrooms, it says that ‘wash hand basins, WC, bath and shower should all be functioning, undamaged and hygienic.’
3. Fixtures and fittings left by an outgoing tenant will be considered for reuse where they are practical, safe, and compliant and they will be left for the next tenant.
The property has a bathroom which had been modified by the previous resident with the landlord’s permission in 2011. These adaptations included:
1. Installation of a disabled toilet.
2. Installation of a shower over a new bathtub.
The adaptation resulted in the installation of a new bathtub which included a built-in seat and access door in the bath side panel. This provided the bath user with a seated position within the bath at the expense of the bath’s length. An over bath shower had also been installed as part of these works.
The landlord’s adaptation’s policy says that tenants have the right to make some alterations to the property providing written approval is provided. The landlord allows residents to make alterations on the proviso of several conditions, including that the work will be inspected by the landlord once completed and that on the tenancy ending the installation would be left in position and in working order.
The property was allocated to the resident who was able to apply for it as it was advertised via the local authority using a choice-based lettings system. The resident was registered as homeless at the time that he applied for the property.

Summary of events

On 23 August 2021, the landlord inspected the property following the previous tenancy ending. Its timescale for reletting the property was set at 10 days due to the amount of work required, which was minimal. In regard to the bathroom, during this void period the landlord:
1. Renewed the shower rose spray head.
2. Renewed the shower curtain.
3. Resealed both ends of the bath.
On 6 September 2021, the landlord received a report from the resident that the kitchen was not usable following him moving into the property. The resident maintains that he contacted the landlord on several additional occasions before the call was returned on 24 September 2021.
After this, the landlord and its contractor inspected the kitchen and works were ordered on 30 September 2021 which were completed on 14 October 2021. This work included kitchen reconfiguration work agreed between the landlord’s surveyor and the resident. This included:
1. Renewing all worktops with resident’s choice of colour.
2. Renewing worktop tiles to black brick effect.
3. Moving a base unit to form a new cooker space and moving a power socket to allow for the cooker’s connection.
4. Providing a double socket in the hallway cupboard.
5. Renewing the kitchen flooring.
On 15 October 2021 an internal email was sent between different departments of the landlord after a conversation with the resident. The email said that the resident wanted to speak to someone about the unrequired adaptations in the bathroom and that the kitchen was without a space for a cooker. The resident had said he had been unable to use a cooker for 6 weeks and that he wanted a rent refund or discount.
An internal email sent between the landlord’s departments on 15 October 2021 said:
1. A site visit had taken place on 14 October 2021 and works had been completed.
2. On letting there had been a space for a cooker which the resident had used for a fridge freezer.
3. Units had been moved in agreement with the resident to relocate the cooker space to a new position.
4. It had been discussed whether moving the gas boiler out of the kitchen could take place to create space, however following discussion with the gas team it was agreed that this was not possible.
5. The landlord had spoken with the resident and agreed a layout he was happy with.
6. It noted that the bathroom had not been raised with the attending surveyors whilst they were working with the resident to reconfigure the kitchen.
On 18 October 2021 the resident spoke to a team leader about issues with the property. A letter was then sent on 26 October 2021 to confirm the landlord’s position.
In its letter the landlord addressed the issue of the kitchen being unusable due to the lack of space for a cooker and a delay in this work starting, and said:
1. It was unable to offer compensation as the kitchen was usable when the resident moved in as there was space for a cooker which the resident used for a fridge freezer. Whilst a new kitchen would not be fitted the landlord had made several changes including:
  1. Relocating the fridge to a hallway cupboard.
  2. New pipework for the water meter to ensure it fitted ‘more neatly’.
  3. Worktops and tiling had been renewed.
In its letter the landlord also addressed the resident’s concerns about the property having an adapted bathroom and that the standard of fit and finish was not good enough with perished flooring and dirty pipework. The landlord said:
1. It considered the bathroom to be of an acceptable standard.
2. The resident had been able to view the property prior to acceptance and knew of the adaptations.
3. It acknowledged that the resident had felt he had no choice but to accept the property but that all its applicants were requested to sign acceptance of a property prior to the tenancy start.
4. The bathroom would not be changed unless on a pre-planned maintenance cycle.
5. The landlord’s reply to the resident’s query invited the resident to make a complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
On 29 October 2021, the landlord received a complaint via email which it acknowledged the same day. The resident’s complaint said:
1. He had been under pressure to accept the flat at the same time as viewing it as the landlord had told him it would otherwise be offered to another applicant.
2. The kitchen had not been usable from when he moved in with only space for 2 appliances.
3. The gas piping and electrical feed for a cooker were boxed in behind a unit so a cooker could not be installed.
4. Work on the kitchen begin on 5 October 2021 and ended on 14 October 2021, during which time the kitchen was unusable because of storage and flooring issues. This made the property unliveable as the water supply was off.
5. The landlord had not been aware that the bathroom had been modified to suit a disabled person. This modification had resulted in a small bathing space.
6. Pipework was corroded and boxing in was poorly completed.
7. Dirt was ingrained on some of the fixtures, which the resident had raised with a member of the landlord’s staff, but he had received no response.
8. The resident requested compensation for being unable to use the kitchen and for a suitable bathroom to be fitted.
The complaint’s investigating officer communicated with the resident and organised to visit the property on 9 November 2021, after which the landlord said it would send its outcome response.
On 11 November 2021 the landlord sent the stage 1 complaint response. This response said:
1. It did not uphold the complaint about the bathroom:
2. It understood that the bathroom was adapted, and the resident did not need these adaptations, however the landlord would not remove them.
3. It would arrange for the bathroom to be deep cleaned.
4. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint about the kitchen being unusable.
5. A space was provided with the facility to plug in an electric cooker.
6. It had agreed to re-arrange the kitchen to create a new space for the cooker and to have the fridge freezer moved to the cupboard.
7. £26 was offered in response to the resident’s complaint that the kitchen had been unusable between 6 October 2021 and 12 October 2021 whilst work had been completed to reconfigure the kitchen.
On 11 November 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident and read the response letter. The resident thanked the landlord for how the complaint had been handled but said that he did not feel that the issues had been resolved. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The reasons for the escalation were:
1. The dates the landlord had referred to for when the kitchen was unusable were incorrect and that the work took 10 days, not 7.
2. The kitchen had not been usable when the resident moved in as there was neither an electric nor gas point for the cooker.
3. The bathroom was ‘not up to standard’.
On 17 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and said:
1. He had requested a copy of the landlord’s kitchen and bathroom standards 3 weeks ago and had not received any response.
2. He asked who was dealing with the stage 2 complaint.
The landlord replied on the same day to explain that there was no specific documentation that listed the standard bathroom specifications. The landlord explained that its lettable standard for a property was that each property must be safe, clean, and secure before it is relet. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with this response and asked again what criteria the landlord’s repairs and maintenance teams used to make their judgements.
On 18 November 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to apologise that its stage 2 acknowledgement had not been received. The landlord explained that the acknowledgement letter had been sent on 11 November 2021 and this letter advised the name of the manager dealing with the complaint. A copy of the letter was provided for the resident.
The landlord sought to contact the resident about a home visit and to discuss the complaint 6 times between 18 November 2021 and 25 November 2021 and after receiving no reply from the resident the landlord issued its response.
Within the 25 November 2021 stage 2 response, the landlord said:
1. About the kitchen not being usable when the resident moved in, the landlord had found that the electric point for the cooker had been hidden behind a kitchen unit. This was then resolved by the kitchen reconfiguration the landlord completed on 12 October 2021, during which new tiling and worktops were also provided. In recognition of the resident being left without full use of his kitchen for the 5 weeks from when he moved in until the kitchen works’ completion, the landlord upheld the complaint and offered £511.95, which was 5 weeks’ rent.
2. In addition, the resident had asked for the landlord’s kitchen specification. The landlord said that it did not have a specification for individual properties with its Assets team working to ensure properties were let ‘safe, clean and secure’. The kitchen renewals specification said, ‘each cooker space shall have a gas bayonet, electric cooker outlet and restraint chain, and be tiled down to the floor.’
3. About the adapted bathroom’s suitability, it said it would not be upholding the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s position remained that the adapted bathroom was in an acceptable condition. The property had been accepted by the resident at the time of viewing. The bathroom would only be changed as part of a pre-planned maintenance cycle.
The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 25 November 2021 was its final response to the complaint, confirming that the complaint had exhausted its internal complaints process.
The resident replied to the landlord on the 25 November 2021. In relation to the stage 2 position about the bathroom, the resident noted his tenancy agreement required residents to get permission before carrying out alterations and that a normal condition of permission was that when a resident left the property any alterations should be made good and returned to the original condition. The resident stressed that he believed that the landlord had failed to ask the outgoing resident to put the bathroom back to its standard fittings.
In correspondence following on from this, in December 2021, the resident and landlord discussed the offered clean of the bathroom and the landlord’s offer to find out when the bathroom would be due an upgrade under its planned maintenance programmes.
After the final response letter, in correspondence with this Service, the resident expressed concern about how his mental health illness had been made worse by the landlord who had failed to take into account his mental health conditions.
In an update in September 2023, during this investigation, the resident informed this service that following an asset survey of the property in the later part of 2022, the landlord agreed to replace the bathroom. This work then took place in approximately February 2023.

Assessment and findings

Under para. 24 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, ‘the Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within his jurisdiction under the terms of the scheme.’ We seek to resolve disputes wherever possible. However, we must be mindful of the limits of our authority and ensure that the complaints that we consider accurately reflect this.
An element of this complaint is outside of this Service’s jurisdiction as the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) considers complaints regarding the suitability of accommodation offered under a choice-based lettings scheme. This means, the Housing Ombudsman is unable to comment on the suitability of the adapted bathroom for the resident in this investigation report.
The landlord’s void policy says that fixtures and fittings left by an outgoing tenant will be considered for reuse and where they are practical, safe, and compliant they will be left for the next resident. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to apply this policy in making its decision for the bathroom to remain in the property during the void process.
The resident applied for the property using the local authority’s choice-based lettings system. Prior to the tenancy commencement, the resident was able to view the property, although the resident expressed that he felt pressured into deciding to accept the property. It is the case that the landlord will have required a quick response so that it could let the property and there is no evidence that the resident raised any concern about the bathroom prior to the property being let.
In conclusion, there was no maladministration as the landlord acted in accordance with its policies when allocating the property with the adapted bathroom in situ.

The resident’s reports of an unusable kitchen when he moved in.

On 6 September 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that there was an issue with the kitchen and there not being a space for a cooker. This resulted in the resident being unable to use a cooker at the property when he moved in. There was a delay in the landlord responding to this complaint which it recognised in its stage 1 response, offering £25 to the resident for the time and trouble of making repeated calls about the issue, which was a reasonable offer for it to take for this customer service failure.
When the landlord did attend the property, it worked in collaboration with the resident to rework the kitchen. The evidence suggests the resident was able to choose new tiles, worktops and floor coverings. It was good practice for the landlord to ensure the resident chose the kitchen finish in the property and the landlord behaved reasonably to facilitate the resident’s requests.
Whilst the landlord did not recognise at stage 1 the core element of the resident’s complaint, which was that he had not been provided with the facility to connect a cooker in the property as there were no gas or electric points, this was addressed at stage 2. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman’s will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord, (repairs and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
At stage 2, the landlord recognised its failure during the void process to ensure that there was a workable space for a cooker which had resulted in the resident having to pursue the landlord to make kitchen alterations and having 5 weeks without full use of the property’s facilities. To remedy this the landlord offered 5 weeks rent which amounted to £511.04 and undertook the required work. In consideration of the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the amount of £511.04 is within the range of awards considered suitable where there has been maladministration with no permanent impact on the resident. In this case, the landlord’s offer of this compensation amounts to reasonable redress. By making this payment it has shown it recognised the impact of the issue caused by the lack of cooking facilities for the resident and the time and trouble taken to have the matter resolved.

Associated complaint.

The resident made the landlord aware of his concern about the use of the bathing facilities on 15 October 2021. The landlord responded 7 days later by telephone call and afterwards in a letter which laid out its position clearly that the resident had accepted the property prior to signing the tenancy and the adapted bathroom suite would not be changed. The landlord’s decision to put the outcome of its conversation with the resident in writing and to include signposting to its complaint process was good practice. This letter demonstrated the landlord being clear in its communication and ensuring the resident was aware of its complaints process.
On receipt of the complaint, the landlord did act reasonably in that its complaints handler attended the property to consider the residents complaint. On inspection of the bathroom, it offered a clean as was reasonable for it to do so.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code section 5.6 says that landlords must address all points raised in a complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law or good practice as appropriate. It is therefore reasonable to expect the landlord to set out the reasons for its decisions, supported by its policies, procedures or any other relevant evidence. When asked by the resident for it to provide a more detailed response on its decision making regarding the bathroom, here the landlord did not clearly set out the policies and procedures used to make the decisions during the voids process so to assist with its explanation of the decisions that led to the former resident’s adaptations being left in situ.
In conclusion, the Ombudsman finds maladministration as the landlord did not set out its decision using contemporaneous evidence, policies and procedures. This caused the resident additional time, trouble and distress in pursuing his complaint. Using the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance an appropriate Order for redress will be made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of letting the property with an adapted bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of an unusable kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord acted in accordance with its policies in letting the property with the adapted bathroom fixtures in situ.
The landlord acted to reconfigure the kitchen in accordance with the resident’s wishes. Within the complaints process the landlord did accept that the resident did not have an appropriate cooker point when he moved in and at stage 2 offered redress by way of 5 weeks full rent refund in compensation, an amount which is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
The landlord did not fully explain the reasons for its decisions in its complaint responses.

Orders

It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this report landlord pays directly to the resident £175 compensation for its handling of the associated complaint.
It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this report an appropriate senior member of the landlord’s staff provides the resident with an apology and an opportunity to discuss the landlord’s customer service standards.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers the findings of this case and whether complaint training is required to ensure staff are confident in explaining decisions using its policies and procedures to ensure its complaint responses are in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.