Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited (202306377)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306377

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited

17 December 2024

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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. Asbestos.
2. The upgrade of her kitchen and bathroom.
3. Access to her consumer unit.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 24 January 2005. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord has no vulnerabilities registered for the resident.
On 25 March 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. In summary she said she was dissatisfied that the works to her kitchen and bathroom had been cancelled. She said that in her recent correspondence to the landlord she had not declined the works. The landlord had failed to provide her with the information she had requested.
On 4 April 2023, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. In summary it said.
1. It had agreed at the resident’s requests to remove the asbestos in the kitchen and bathroom ceiling even though this was not necessary as part of the upgrade.
2. As a gesture of good will it had also agreed to remove the asbestos in the living room.
3. It had arranged to decant the resident while the removal works were completed.
4. To remove the asbestos, it had to employ a licensed contractor to carry out the work. It had got them in place along with another contractor to carry out an air test after the removal. As the resident had cancelled these works it had caused a great inconvenience and cost to the landlord.
5. The bathroom suite it fits is standard in all of its properties. It appreciated the resident wanted to know the size of the bath and specification of the wash hand basin and toilet but there were no alternatives to the standard fittings.
On 1 May 2023, the resident requested that the matter be escalated to a stage 2 complaint. In summary she said:
1. She had requested that the removal of the asbestos in the ceiling be dealt with in all 3 rooms at the same time and this had been agreed to be completed on 8 to 10 March 2023.
2. She disagreed that she was not in when the kitchen designer attended on 15 February 2023.
3. When a second contractor attended later that same day to measure the bathroom she had asked for the size of the bath, sink and toilet and was advised that she would be sent this information in an email.
4. At the same time, the contractor measured the kitchen. She showed the contractor where the fuse box was. She did not consider that she had been able to be a part of the design of the kitchen whereas other residents had.
5. She had been given a leaflet that said she was getting like for like in respect of the replacement bathroom and kitchen. When she pointed this out to the landlord, she was told she would not. She did not understand why she had been given a leaflet stating she would.
6. On 26 February 2023 she had sent an email to the landlord requesting the measurements for the bathroom suite and the kitchen plan. The landlord responded on 3 March with the layout for the kitchen which failed to show how she could access the fuse box. The landlord provided just the measurement for the bath.
7. By 5 March 2023 she had not received the measurement for the toilet and the sink. She then cancelled the removal of the ceilings and pointed out why. She did not want to be in the position where she did not have a choice of what the layout would be in the kitchen and bathroom. She then received an email advising that she would not be getting a new kitchen and bathroom until 2024-2025. She considered this was unreasonable.
8. She did not think that the ceilings were being removed as a gesture of good will. The ceilings needed to be removed for new lights and a fan to be fitted in the bathroom.
9. She disagreed that she had more cupboard space in the new kitchen design.
10. If she had been given the relevant information about the kitchen and bathroom, she may have been able to resolve the concerns she had.
11. At the end of the stage 1 complaint, she had not been given an address for who she could escalate her stage 2 complaint to. She had to phone to obtain an address.
On 15 May 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. In summary it said:
1. It was satisfied that it had completed a full investigation within its stage 1 complaint response.
2. The resident chose to cancel the appointment when the works were scheduled because she had not been provided with enough time to consider her options.
3. The landlord had now placed the renewals of the kitchen and bathroom on the programme to be completed within the financial year 2024 to 2025 as the current year’s programme is at maximum capacity.
4. The work to the kitchen and bathroom were not a health and safety concern as they were a planned upgrade.
5. If there were any cancellations to the years planned programme or additional resource became available, it would of course be in contact to see if it could complete the upgrade sooner.
On the 22 August 2023, the landlord sent a further stage 2 response because it had not addressed the resident’s concerns about access to the consumer unit within the new kitchen plan. In summary it said:
1. It had been unable to access the property to complete a kitchen plan. This meant that the plan was done using the measurements of the room only.
2. It was not its policy to block in any consumer unit in any way as access to this must be available at all times.
3. As the kitchen and bathroom upgrades had been moved to the 2024/25 programme it would ensure that it would create a new plan once it had gained access in time for the replacement.

Post complaint.

The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this Service. She disagreed with the landlord’s complaint responses. She wanted the landlord to start the works now rather than delaying further.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos.

The records show that an asbestos survey was completed in the kitchen and bathroom in August 2020. The survey found low risk asbestos in the kitchen and bathroom ceilings. The recommendation in the survey was to remove. A further asbestos survey was completed in March 2022. This found low risk asbestos in the living room ceiling and the recommendation was to remove.
This Service asked the landlord to provide its records to show what it advised the resident following the completion of the surveys. It has not provided any records relative to this despite our request. That it has not is a failing in its record keeping.
Record keeping is core function of a housing service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations. Furthermore, it enables the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
The records show that in January 2023 the landlord was in discussion with the resident to try to book in the renewal of the kitchen and bathroom. The resident said that she did not want the works done until the asbestos in her ceilings was removed. It is unknown what was discussed with the resident following this request which evidences further poor record keeping.
On 7 February 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it would be removing the asbestos in the kitchen and bathroom. It said its contractor would contact the resident directly to arrange this. The records show that a removal date was agreed to take place in March. On 13 February 2023, the resident requested that the asbestos in the lounge ceiling be removed at the same time. There are no records to show what the landlord’s response was.
The resident then contacted the landlord again on 21 February 2023 as she was concerned that the order for asbestos removal only included the kitchen and bathroom and not the lounge.
Internal correspondence dated 22 February 2023 showed that the landlord had been in communication with the resident. It referred to telephone conversations with the resident. Within that correspondence it confirmed that all 3 ceilings were due to have asbestos removed.
It is unclear however exactly what was discussed with the resident. It is evident that other departments were involved as they were organising a decant to facilitate the works. The landlord has not recorded its communication with the resident. That it did not shows poor record keeping which has been a continued failing in this investigation.
On 26 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord she said she had not heard anything and wanted to know if the asbestos removal was still going ahead as agreed. She said she had not received the measurements for the bathroom suite or the design for the kitchen. She could not agree the works until she had this information.
The landlord responded on 3 March 2023 it provided the kitchen plan and the bath specification. It asked her to confirm that she still wished the works to go ahead. On 5 March, the resident cancelled the works to the ceilings she provided reasons related to lack of information about the kitchen and bathroom installation which will be assessed later in this report.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it said that it had not been necessary to remove the asbestos to complete the bathroom and kitchen works. It also said that it had included the lounge ceiling into the work as a gesture of good will. The asbestos surveys recommended that the asbestos was removed. It is therefore unknown how the landlord concluded that the removal was a gesture of goodwill. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show what was explained to the resident prior to the complaint response.
It also said that it had done everything it could and that costs had been incurred because the resident had cancelled the works. While it is acknowledged that the cancellation of the works caused issues for the landlord it should have set out its position in respect of the asbestos removal. By not doing so it was unclear whether the removal works were going to be completed in the future or not. This did not foster a good landlord tenant relationship or provide a resolution. It also caused the resident further time and effort having to pursue her complaint further.
In summary it was evident that the landlord had been on notice of the recommendations to remove the asbestos in the ceilings since 2020. It has failed however to show how it communicated those recommendations and what action was agreed with the resident following the surveys.
It is acknowledged that the landlord responded to the resident’s requests to complete the removal of asbestos in all 3 ceilings. This was reasonable. It was clearly in discussions with the resident arranging the decant and trying to agree dates. However, the lack of records make it difficult to determine whether the landlord did all it could to clearly communicate with the resident. The resident was querying whether the asbestos works were still going ahead on 26 February 2023.
Where substantial works are required, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to set out and agree an action plan with the resident. It should also record this on its system. Particularly where there are various departments involved and a decant is required. This would ensure that the landlord is able to monitor progress and adhere to any agreed deadlines. It also provides transparency to the resident and avoids any confusion.
The lack of records showing how it communicated with the resident means that this service cannot fully assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos. It is evident that the resident cancelling the works was a contributory factor. This is because it prevented the landlord completing the scheduled works. The landlord failed however to consider how this could be resolved within its complaint response. This was a missed opportunity to put matters right.
The lack of resolution and the landlord’s failure to show that it clearly communicated with the resident amounts to maladministration in this case. The failing has caused the resident further time and inconvenience in having to pursue her matter with this Service. This has been considered in the orders and compensation below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the upgrade of her kitchen and bathroom.

The Decent Homes Standard, a standard for social housing introduced by the UK government, advises that properties should have reasonably modern facilities such as kitchens, bathrooms, and windows. The landlord’s obligations therefore include repair or replacement of old components where this is considered required.
It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine at what point such modernisations are required, as this Service considers that the landlord, its staff, and contractors are best qualified to determine whether components are still functional and fit for purpose and when repairs or replacement are required.
It is unclear when the resident was first advised that her kitchen and bathroom were on the planned programme for an upgrade. The records provided to this Service show that the landlord was in communication with the resident in January 2023. In February 2023, the landlord provided the resident with a schedule of the works it was proposing to take. This included anticipated start dates of when the works would commence. This was appropriate and ensured that the resident’s expectations were being managed.
It is acknowledged that these dates would have changed as the resident asked that the asbestos removal was completed first. The records however do not show whether an updated action plan was provided based on the change in the sequence of works. That it did not is a failure in its handling of the matter.
The bathroom inspector visited the resident in February 2023. The resident said that she had asked the bathroom fitter for the measurements of the bath, sink and toilet. She said she was advised that she would receive this information by email. The landlord’s records do not provide any information about the landlord’s visit which is a failing in its record keeping.
On 26 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord as she had not received the measurements for the bathroom suite or the kitchen design. The landlord responded on 28 February and provided the specification for the two types of baths it could offer. It provided the kitchen plan on 3 March 2023 and asked the resident to confirm if she wished the works to go ahead by 6 March 2023.
The landlord only gave the resident 3 days in which to consider the information and confirm that the works could go ahead. The landlord had not answered the resident’s enquiries in full as it had not addressed the size of the sink and the toilet. The landlord said within its stage 2 response that while it appreciated the resident wanted to know the measurements. It could not provide alternatives as its bathroom suites were standard. The landlord’s records do not show that it communicated this to the resident when she first enquired. By not setting out its position it failed to manage the resident’s expectations.
Furthermore, due to no access the kitchen plans had been done without the landlord viewing the kitchen. It would therefore be appropriate to allow time for the resident to consider the plans and be given an opportunity to ask any questions. That it did not was a further failing.
On 5 March 2023, the resident said she wanted to cancel the asbestos works because she felt rushed and still had matters outstanding relative to the kitchen and bathroom. The records show that the landlord then cancelled all of the works.
Given the substantial amounts of works that were booked in It would have been reasonable for the landlord to try to contact the resident in the first instance. By doing so it could have tried to find a resolution. In particular it could have ensured that she understood that by cancelling the works she would have to wait a further year for the upgrades to be completed. That it did not was a missed opportunity to resolve matters and a failing in its handling of the matter.
The landlord said within its complaint response that it was satisfied that it had done its best to accommodate the resident’s request relating to her kitchen. This included considering moving the washing machine and more cupboard space. It is unclear what records the landlord referred to during its complaint investigation. This Service has not had sight of the records that show it discussed the kitchen plans with the resident. This is a further failing in the landlord’s record keeping.
In summary the landlord failed to show that it had clearly communicated with the resident. It failed to provide sufficient time to the resident to enable her to raise any enquiries she may have had. Its record keeping, and information management was poor. It then missed an opportunity to try to resolve matters with the resident before it cancelled the works.
The works being completed were substantial and the resident was clearly concerned and wanted clarity which was reasonable. She spent time and effort contacting the landlord to gain clarity. She then spent further time and effort having to pursue her complaint with the Ombudsman. This Service considers the failings amount to maladministration and this has been considered in the orders and compensation below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about access to her consumer unit.

The resident first raised her concerns about access to the consumer unit on 5 March 2023. It is unclear whether the landlord responded as it was at this point it had cancelled the kitchen works. However, it still should have provided clarification at the point the resident raised her concern. That it did not was a failing in its handling of the matter.
The resident then had to wait until August 2023 to receive a response as the landlord failed to address the issue in its first stage 2 response. This was 5 months after she had raised her concern and a further failing in its handling of the matter.
The landlord did however set out its position within its complaint response. It explained that this was an error as it had completed the kitchen off of its plans. It confirmed that it would not block off a consumer unit in accordance with its policy. It assured the resident that it would create a new plan prior to doing the kitchen works. It apologised for any upset this may have caused. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
In summary this Service considers the landlord’s failing in its communication and delayed response amounts to a service failure. The detriment caused in the circumstances would have been minimal given that the works had already been cancelled until next year. Its failing did however cause further time and effort to the resident having to pursue the matter with this Service to enable her to get a response. This has been considered in the orders and compensation below.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a 2-stage complaint procedure. It will acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days. It will respond to a stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 working days. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within its time frames.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to address all of the issues raised by the resident. It failed to consider the missed appointment, the fact she was told she would receive measurements by email and her concerns about the leaflet she had been provided. It also failed to consider the access to the consumer unit.
It is acknowledged that the landlord did later address access to the consumer unit, and it did provide a formal response to the resident. However, the resident had raised the concerns and should have received a detailed response to all the issues she raised. This was a complaint handling failure and a missed opportunity to put matters right at a much earlier stage. The resident had to spend time and effort having to pursue her complaint further.
The stage 1 and 2 complaint responses did not show a meaningful assessment of how the landlord had handled the issues. It was unclear what records it had relied upon to satisfy itself that it had done all it could. The response demonstrated a lack of investigation and curiosity. By failing to consider what went wrong it failed to put things right.
This Service considers the above failings amount to maladministration. The resident had to spend time and effort pursuing her complaint further. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the upgrade of her kitchen and bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about access to her consumer unit.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £650 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos.
  2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the upgrade of the kitchen and bathroom.
  3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about access her consumer unit.
  4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
Within 10 weeks the landlord is ordered to complete a review into its handling of this case to identify how it can prevent similar failings happening again, with a particular focus on:
1. Satisfying itself that it has effective procedures in place to ensure residents are aware of what works are required and the time frames in which they will be completed.
2. Satisfying itself that it has effective procedures in place to record and store communication with its residents accurately which reflect its own and contractor’s actions.
3. That there is effective internal communication, and that teams are aware of relevant roles in keeping the resident updated.
4. Satisfying itself that residents have the opportunity to view plans and ask questions in good time before the works commence.
The landlord must share the outcome of its review with this Service also within 10 weeks.
Within 10 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to agree an action plan for the works which are due in the 2024/2025 programme. The action plan should include a list of the agreed works and estimated timescales. A copy of the action plan should be provided to the resident and this Service also within 10 weeks.