Stonewater Limited (202215389)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215389

Stonewater Limited

23 June 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 the resident’s request for various repairs in her property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
3. In May 2021, the resident reported that her kitchen was in a poor state of repair which included damaged doors and cupboards. At that time the resident was informed that her kitchen was due to be replaced in the 2022/23 financial year. Also, if there were no outstanding repairs required to the kitchen doors and cupboards, she would have to wait for this renewal.
4. In December 2021, the resident raised a complaint about the matter. She stated that her kitchen was “falling apart” and despite numerous repairs, the kitchen was still in an unacceptable condition. The resident also raised concerns that the front door in the property bows, which leaves a clear gap between the frame and door. The resident was unhappy that this was likely to increase her energy costs. In addition, the resident raised that three of her radiators in the property did not work.
5. In its complaint response, the landlord stated that the kitchen had been assessed and added to the 2022/23 cyclical repairs programme. It stated that it was unable to confirm a date when this would be completed, but it would be in touch to arrange the replacement kitchen. In relation to the front door, the landlord stated that a new door would be installed after an inspection was completed. The landlord acknowledged that it had handled the resident’s complaint poorly and that its communication surrounding the repairs had been unsatisfactory. It offered the resident £600 compensation in light of its poor communication and delays to the repairs process.
6. In July 2022, the landlord installed a new front door to the property.
7. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 18 October 2022. The resident expressed that she remained unhappy that her new kitchen had yet to be installed despite having this confirmed by the landlord. The resident also remained unhappy that the other repairs identified following the inspection by its surveyor in March 2022 had not yet been completed. As a resolution, the resident requested for the works to be completed and an increased offer of compensation.
8. This Service was informed that the kitchen replacement took place in ‘early’ 2023; however, a specific date was not provided.

Policies and procedures

9. The landlord’s repairs policy states that non-emergency repairs should be completed within 28 working days. It also states that major repairs should be completed within 42 working days. The policy describes these repairs as those where a significant amount of work is required which is beyond an original repair.

Scope of investigation

10. In the resident’s correspondence, she has referred to historical issues of the kitchen being in a poor state of repair. In accordance with paragraph 42 (c) Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it states that we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to May 2021. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in December 2021.
11. It is further acknowledged that the resident has raised further issues with her property and the repairs completed. This includes:
    1. A leak from the bathroom into the downstairs area;
    2. A hole left in the ceiling following contractors work to repair the leak;
    3. The standard of her kitchen refurbishment not being of a satisfactory standard.
12. It is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider events after the date that the case had exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. It is recommended that the landlord reviews the situation and provides further support to the resident. If the work is not complete or the resident remains dissatisfied, the resident has the right to make another complaint regarding this and to approach this Service if suitable redress is not offered. However, the above issues will not be addressed in this investigation.
13. It is understood at this stage that the resident had a new kitchen installed in December 2022. Any further complaints emanating from that installation will not be explored in this investigation. However, we will consider the landlord’s actions in relation to the resident’s request for a new kitchen, the approval process and installation of this.

Assessment and findings

14. In accordance with the Decent Home Standard, the lifetime of a kitchen in a house or bungalow is 30 years. Moreover, Criterion C of the Decent Homes Standard states that a dwelling is considered not to meet this criterion if it lacks three or more of the following facilities:
    1. a kitchen which is 20 years old or less;
    2. a kitchen with adequate space and layout;
    3. a bathroom which is 30 years old or less;
    4. an appropriately located bathroom and WC;
    5. adequate external noise insulation and
    6. adequate size and layout of common entrance areas for blocks of flats.
15. Therefore, when a resident states that their kitchen was not completed to a reasonable standard and the layout was poor, a landlord should carry out an inspection to ensure that the aforementioned obligations are being met. In this instance, upon receiving reports of poor layout and the kitchen being aged the landlord acted reasonably in attending the property to complete an inspection. It was at this stage that the landlord added the kitchen onto its cyclical repairs schedule for the 2022/23 financial year.
16. As this would cost the landlord a significant amount of money to complete, it was reasonable for the landlord to add it to the cyclical works list for the financial year of 2022/2023. However, it is acknowledged that the landlord should have been clearer in its communication with the resident regarding the timeframe for which the kitchen would be installed. This would have alleviated some of the resident’s concerns regarding her kitchen replacement and would have meant the resident did not have to spend time and energy in chasing up the repair to the kitchen cupboards.
17. In relation to the repairs to the front door, the landlord’s repairs policy states that major repairs should be completed within 42 working days. As the front door required a full replacement of the front door and frame, it would be beyond an original repair therefore, falling into this category. The resident reported the requirement for a door replacement in December 2022; however, the landlord did not attend until 16 March 2022, and not fully completed until 28 July 2022. This was 27 working days outside of the repairs policy obligation to have the repairs completed within 42 working days.
18. In addition, whilst the new door was installed on 28 July 2022, the full door repair was not completed until 4 April 2023, as the plastering around the door remained outstanding to be completed. This had been damaged when the door was installed on 28 July 2022, this was approximately eight months after the initial repair was completed. The landlord did not provide an explanation as to why these repairs were delayed, nor why the plaster was not repaired sooner than eight months later. This in itself was an unnecessary delay in the repairs process, and caused the resident distress and inconvenience which was evidenced by the continuous contact the resident had with the landlord in trying to get the matters resolved.
19. As such, the landlord offered the resident £600 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance (published on our website). The guidance suggests amounts of £100 to £600 for cases where there has been service failure which adversely affected the resident, but no permanent impact. It is relevant here that the overall finding of this case has been identified as reasonable redress, though a finding of maladministration might have been identified had the landlord not offered a significant amount of compensation. The landlord should learn from this Service’s findings in relation to its quality of repairs and its communication about the repairs, and the effect that these elements being poorly handled can have on residents.

Determination

20. 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 about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for various repairs in her property satisfactorily.

Recommendations

21. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £600 compensation offered if it has not done so already.
22. The landlord should confirm compliance with the recommendation to this Service within six weeks of the date of this report.