Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Settle Group (202216816)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216816

Settle Group

10 July 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s kitchen renewal and subsequent compensation offer.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The landlord began undertaking planned works to renew the resident’s kitchen on 20 September 2022. On 30 September 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord, stating that the contractors had either failed to turn up on a number of occasions, or they turned up unannounced. She also complained that she had been left without sufficient kitchen facilities during the works, and that the contractors had completed the works to a poor standard.
  3. The landlord attended the property on 10 October 2022. It identified a number of issues with the quality of kitchen refurbishment and arranged for various aspects to be redone. It agreed on 13 October 2022 that the outstanding works would be completed by a different contractor. The landlord sent its stage one response on 20 October 2022. Its reply mainly revolved around other issues raised by the resident, which were unrelated to this case. It stated that the kitchen replacement was being overseen by its surveyor, who would ensure that the works progressed in-line with its service standards. It offered £150 compensation to the resident, to acknowledge all the issues raised in her complaint.
  4. The landlord re-ordered a replacement kitchen panel, as one had been damaged by the contractors. This was delivered on 20 October 2022. The resident was then on holiday from 25 October 2022 until 31 October 2022. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 November 2022. She complained about the original contractor’s behaviour and attitude, the quality of the works to the kitchen and the landlord’s lack of communication. She was dissatisfied with the overall delays and asked to be further compensated for her stress and inconvenience. The landlord attended on 1 November 2022 to review the outstanding works and provided the resident with a schedule of works commencing on 3 November 2022.
  5. The landlord sent its final response on 23 November 2022. The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s works were delayed by an additional four weeks. However, it stated that the resident had contributed to the delays by requesting changes to both the design, and the contractors. It also explained that the resident had been away for a week during the works, and restricted the working hours of the contractors to school hours to minimise disruption for her children. The landlord stated that the majority of the delays were unavoidable. It also explained that where there had been errors, it had taken appropriate steps to rectify them. It offered £100 further compensation, in recognition of those errors.
  6. As the resident remained dissatisfied, the landlord discussed the case with her on 24 January 2023. It decided to increase its compensation offer to £500, in recognition of the delays, poor communication and inconvenience to the resident. In her complaint to this Service, the resident remains dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered.

Assessment

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s kitchen renewal and subsequent compensation offer.

  1. The resident’s kitchen renewal was scheduled to be undertaken as part of a larger scheme of planned works by the landlord. In line with general good customer service, the schedule of works would be expected to be communicated to the resident, and this should be adhered to where possible. If the landlord found that its works would be altered or delayed, it would be expected to keep the resident updated to manage her expectations. The resident has stated that she was told the works would be completed within 15 days. The works commenced on 20 September 2022, and were finalised in mid-November 2022. The landlord confirmed in its stage two response that the works were delayed by about four weeks.
  2. While delays are not always considered a service failure, in line with general good customer service standards, the landlord would be expected to evidence an appropriate reason for the delays. It would also need to continue to manage the resident’s works and to communicate proactively with the resident throughout. It would be expected to consider if any interim measures were necessary, to make the resident more comfortable.
  3. The resident initially requested some changes to the kitchen design in September 2022, before the works commenced.  A small alteration was approved on 9 September 2022. On 26 September 2022, the landlord stated that the kitchen unit delivery was delayed, due to the change in design. It delivered a small countertop cooker for the resident to use in the interim on 26 September 2022, and ceased works for two days on 27 and 28 September 2022. It was appropriate of the landlord to try and provide an interim solution for the resident to use, while the kitchen renewal was delayed. However, the resident has stated that the countertop cooker was unsafe to use, as she did not have a surface to place it on. She has complained about the cost of preparing ready meals, and buying takeaways for her children for the six week period of works.
  4. The resident has stated that she reported to the contractor that the works were of a poor standard throughout. She made a complaint to the landlord on 30 September 2022, regarding the quality of the works and the behaviour of the contractors, who she found intimidating. The landlord attended on 10 October 2022 and inspected the progress of the works. It was appropriate for the landlord to respond by investigating the works, although it would have been helpful to have attended earlier to have prevented the situation from deteriorating.
  5. On its attendance at the property,the landlord found various problems with the quality of the works. This included a hole in the wall made by the contractors, wall tiles that had been laid unevenly, a crack in one of the worktops and a cracked tile. Additionally, the skirting boards were not cut securely to the wall, there was latex residue on both sides of a door, and the dishwasher did not fit into its allotted space. It was not appropriate that the resident’s kitchen renewal was initially undertaken to a sub-par standard. However, the landlord acted reasonably by attending again on 11 October 2022 and confirming with the resident that the works would be redone. It explained that it needed to re-order a new work top, which would take a few days to arrive. The landlord also offered to undertake additional works such as replacing the tiling with those of her choice. The landlord offered to provide a schedule of works to the resident, to help manage her expectations.
  6. The resident requested that alternative operatives attend the property, as she had found the previous workers to have been disrespectful while in her home. The landlord agreed on 13 October 2022 to send different workers for the majority of the works, but stated that it was struggling to provide a different carpenter due to staffing levels. The same carpenter attended the resident’s property, but failed to complete the works. The landlord therefore agreed to source an alternative carpenter on 18 October 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider the resident’s wishes and attempt to accommodate her, ensuring that she felt comfortable in her home. In its final response it acknowledged that this caused some delay to the works whilst it found an alternative operative.
  7. The landlord also stated in its final response that aspects outside of its control also contributed to the delays. The resident requested changes to the kitchen design prior to the work commencing on 20 September 2022. The landlord allowed a small change, but stated this caused several days delay at the start of the works. On arriving at the property, the landlord found that the resident wished for additional aspects to be completed. This included keeping extra light switches, a fan replacement and extra sockets. The resident also wished to keep her existing pendant lights. The resident was away from 25 October to 31 October 2022, which prevented the landlord from undertaking works that week. Although these aspects were likely to have contributed to the delay, it remains the case that the landlord failed to initially carry out the works to the correct standard and that this resulted in additional time being required to redo the works, source alternative contractors and re-order parts that had been broken during the initial installation. These issues errors made by the landlord and therefore the majority of the delay cannot be attributed to the resident.
  8. It is not clear from the evidence when exactly the landlord completed the works, but this is likely to have been around 11 November 2022. The resident stated to the landlord that the works were now of a good quality. While the quality of the original works and overall delay was not appropriate, the landlord subsequently worked to rectify its errors. It made sure that the resident was comfortable with the staff that subsequently attended and furnished her with a schedule of works to manage her expectations. The landlord also undertook small additional works and finished the works to a good standard.
  9. The landlord eventually offered £500 compensation to the resident, in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused, as well as any additional extra cost she incurred through purchasing ready meals and buying takeaways. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this amount offers reasonable redress for the failings identified in this matter. The amount is also in-line with this Service’s remedies guidance which can be found on our website.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s stage one complaint response on 20 October 2022, did not focus on the resident’s issues with the kitchen. It primarily discussed other aspects raised by the resident, simply stating that the works were now being progressed in line with its service standards. According to this Service’s complaint handling code (the code), the landlord should identify, acknowledge and explain any errors. It should then try to put things right. As the landlord had identified errors in its works on its visit to the property, it should have acknowledged these in its complaint response. This is not only to be able to offer redress to the resident, but to show that her complaint had been properly considered.
  2. The landlord’s final response on 23 November 2022 did discuss the resident’s works. However, the landlord stated that the majority of the delays were unavoidable. This statement appears at odds with the fact that a large number of aspects needed to be redone. The response focused on the delays due to the resident, rather than focusing on the landlord’s own contribution to the delays. While any actions of the resident can be considered as part of the whole response, the landlord should use its complaint response to address where it went wrong and acknowledge this to the resident.
  3. In its final response, the landlord offered the resident a total of £250 compensation, in recognition of the delays to the renewal and the inconvenience caused.
  4. Following the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s final response, the landlord re-considered its position two months later on 24 January 2023. It offered an additional £250 compensation, bringing the total offer to £500. It acted appropriately by acknowledging the delay to the repairs, its lack of communication, and the inconvenience suffered by the resident. This was appropriate, however the landlord should have offered this amount, plus the more specific acknowledgement of its failings in its final response. Failing to offer appropriate redress in its complaint responses caused the process to be prolonged unnecessarily and meant that the resident needed to chase the landlord to gain a more complete response. This is not appropriate and is a failing in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding its handling of the resident’s kitchen renewal and subsequent compensation offer satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Order

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to apologise to the resident and pay an additional £100 compensation, in recognition of its poor complaint handling.
  2. Evidence of compliance with the above order should be sent to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

  1. That the landlord pay the resident the £500 compensation already offered during its complaint procedure, if it has not done so already. The finding of reasonable redress being on the basis that these monies are paid to the resident.