Hyde Housing Association Limited (202000095)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000095

Hyde Housing Association Limited

21 July 2021

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:
   1. Response to the resident’s request to replace the kitchen worktop.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is the shared-owner of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns.  The landlord is the freeholder.
3. The resident purchased her share of the lease in September 2015.

Summary of events

4. On 12 February 2020 the resident registered a complaint with the landlord regarding her kitchen worktop.  In summary the resident said:
   1. The worktop was not installed correctly on installation.  The resident stated that in places there was only “approximately 2mm of actual work top”.
   2. The worktop was confirmed as a defect by the landlord, and it therefore completed a repair at a cost of £100.  The resident stated that she agreed a repair rather than replacement of the worktop in the first instance as it was a “common sense approach”.  The resident confirmed that “at no point did [she] agree to accept this as final resolution”.
   3. The repair had not lasted due to “minimal worktop for the substance to cling to”.  The resident stated that she had reported the issue to the landlord and the officer she had spoken with had confirmed that it was “a latent defect”.
   4. The landlord had refused to replace the worktop despite it “being an installation fault at build stage”.
5. The resident concluded that in order to resolve the complaint the landlord must replace the worktop and award compensation for “disruption and failure to sell [the property] in correct working order”.
6. On 18 February 2020 the resident contacted the landlord in relation to another complaint.  Within her correspondence the resident noted she had meet with the head of the complaints team on 14 February 2020 (the meeting) and he had agreed to investigate her complaint about the kitchen worktop. 
7. On 10 and 11 March 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord following the meeting.  The resident said it was disappointing that, despite the head of the complaints team committing to investigating her complaint, she had not received a response.
8. On 19 March 2020 the resident registered a second complaint with the landlord regarding the kitchen worktop.  In summary the resident said:
   1. Despite raising a complaint on 12 February 2020 the landlord had not replied.  The resident reiterated that the head of the complaints team had assured her that they would “personally investigate the complaint” when she had met with them on 14 February 2020 – the meeting.
   2. She had also referred the matter to the landlord’s legal department, who had also failed to respond.  The resident stated that her complaint therefore also included the “failing of [the landlord’s] legal team”.  The resident noted that she had obtained legal advice which recommended she exhaust the landlord’s complaint procedure before taking formal legal action.
9. The resident concluded the complaint by reiterating the outcomes which she required to resolve the complaint; a replacement worktop and compensation.
10. In April 2020 the resident contacted this Service for assistance as the landlord had not responded to her complaint. 
11. On receipt of the referral, and in June 2020, the Ombudsman made enquiries with the landlord regarding the resident’s complaint.  The Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the complaint under its complaint procedure if it had not done so.  
12. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord again in July 2020 to request that it respond to the resident’s complaint, as she had informed this Service that it had not done so.
13. On 5 August 2020 the landlord provided its stage one response.  In summary the landlord said:
    1. It has reviewed its records which showed that it had investigated the resident’s concerns about the kitchen worktop previously and provided a response on 23 March 2018.  The landlord confirmed that it provided a second response on 30 October 2019 confirming that “no further action would be taken as this matter was resolved, compensation agreed and paid”.
    2. The resident contacted it in 2018 claiming that “the installers damaged [the] kitchen worktop, causing a 2mm hole”.  The landlord confirmed that in response its Product Quality Coordinator contacted the resident on 9 March 2018 and confirmed that following investigation with the contractors it was found that below the mitre joint on the underside of the worktop there was a need for a clamp to ensure the join was secure.  The landlord set out that it advised the resident that this was “normal build process and was not deemed to be a defect” and therefore it would “not consider the worktop to be changed or compensated for”.
    3. Following further correspondence from the resident on 23 March 2018 it reviewed its position.  The landlord confirmed that it was found that the “issue could have been avoided” and it therefore agreed to reimburse the resident the cost of the repair £100.
    4. As the resident accepted its offer, and had received the payment as agreed, it considered that the matter was closed and no complaint would be raised.
14. The landlord confirmed to this Service that its response dated 5 August 2020 was its final response on the complaint, given under its complaint procedure.
15. On 10 August 2020 the resident wrote to this Service following the landlord’s response. The resident noted that a surveyor had inspected the kitchen worktop during an appointment in relation to another matter and they had confirmed that “at installation the outer went too high, thus leaving approximately 2mm of worktop”.    

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

16. The Ombudsman can see that the resident first raised concerns regarding the kitchen worktop in March 2018.  The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns on 23 March 2018 and 30 October 2019.  The landlord’s position was:
    1. 23 March 2018:
       1. The landlord confirmed that it had “reviewed the pictures [of the kitchen worktop] and agreed this could have been avoided”.  The landlord confirmed that it would reimburse the resident “£100 for the cost of the repairs”.  The landlord noted that the payment was “all [the resident] would like to resolve the issue and was happy to keep the existing worktop”.
    2. 30 October 2019:
       1. In response to the resident’s report that the repair to the kitchen worktop had recently failed the landlord confirmed that “as the issue was not identified as a defect, and compensation was paid… [it] was unable to assist [her] with the matter further”.
       2. Within its response the landlord referred to notes following an inspection on 9 March 2019 which stated “below that mitre’s joint on the underside of the worktop, there is a need for a clamp to ensure this joint is secure.  This clamp is rebated into the worktop and in essence reduces a 40mm worktop to a 10 or 12mm thick worktop. This is a normal build process, and as confirmed as damage caused by the resident. Unfortunately this is therefore not a defect and is not something that the Contractor or we will compensate or change”.
17. As part of this investigation the Ombudsman will not consider if the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint dated March 2018 was reasonable or not.  This is because there is no evidence that the resident challenged the resident’s response at that time or referred the complaint to the Ombudsman for intervention.  However, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the historical complaint provides important contextual background to the current complaint which the resident raised in February 2020 and the landlord responded to on 5 August 2020.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace the kitchen worktop

18. The resident made her complaint in February 2020 which was approximately two years after the repair to make good the worktop in early 2018.
19. While it may be the case that the damage to the kitchen worktop is not a repair which the landlord is responsible for, the Ombudsman is not satisfied as to the grounds on which it came to this conclusion. 
20. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have attended the property to inspect the worktop on receipt of the complaint to determine if it was a repair it was responsible for, taking into account the time which had passed since the repair in March 2018.  The landlord did not do this.  Instead, the evidence shows that the landlord relied on its previous consideration of the issue.  While it was not unreasonable for the landlord to take the history of the case into account, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s responses dated March 2018 and October 2019 appear to contain contradictory information.  On 23 March 2018 the landlord said that the damage to the worktop could have been avoided, whereas its position in October 2019 was that the damage was caused by the resident and not a defect.  Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord did not demonstrate fair consideration of the issue or take reasonable steps to investigate the damage.   
21. The Ombudsman has been provided with a copy of the report referred to by the resident in paragraph 15.  The Ombudsman has reviewed the report and has not identified any reference to the property or the kitchen worktop.  The Ombudsman is therefore not able to draw any conclusions from the report. 

The landlord’s complaint handling

22. The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s complaint policy which was in operation at the time of the resident’s complaint, which has since been updated in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The Ombudsman notes the following provisions:
    1. The landlord defined a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction about a service provide by any part or representative of [it]”.
    2. The landlord may decline to investigate a complaint about a specific incident or service failure that occurred over six months prior to the complaint being made.
    3. The landlord operated a two–stage complaint process requiring both stage one and stage two complaints to be responded to within 20 working days. 
23. Despite the resident raising a complaint in February 2020 the landlord did not respond to the complaint until August 2020, and only did so following intervention from this Service.  This is unsatisfactory as a complaint process exists in order to ensure a resident’s concerns are addressed within a specified timeframe and that this timeframe assures the resident will be addressed without undue delay.  This was also contrary to the landlord’s complaint policy which states that it “will always try to provide a prompt response to a customer with a complaint”.  The Ombudsman considers that the delay was unfair to the resident and will only have exacerbated her concerns.
24. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s decision to not accept the resident’s complaint about the kitchen worktop as a complaint.  In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s decision was not reasonable.  While the Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord had previously investigated a complaint regarding the kitchen worktop, the Ombudsman considers the concerns which the resident raised in February 2020 were new, as they occurred after the responses which it had issued in March 2018 and October 2019, and therefore her concerns were eligible for consideration under its complaint procedure.  It would have therefore been appropriate for the landlord to have accepted the complaint and to have examined its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the worktop in order to provide a position on the matter.  The Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord’s policy, that it may decline to investigate a complaint about a specific incident or service failure that occurred over six months prior to the complaint being made, is applicable in this situation. 
25. The Ombudsman notes that in deciding to not accept the complaint the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns regarding delays by its legal team.  In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was unsatisfactory as it denied the resident a comprehensive response to all of her concerns.

Determination (decision)

26. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Service failure by the landlord in response to the resident’s request to replace the kitchen worktop.
    2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

27. The landlord did not demonstrate fair consideration of the issue and take reasonable steps to investigate whether the damage to the kitchen worktop was a repair for which it was responsible for.  It was unsatisfactory that the landlord’s investigation did not include an up-to-date inspection of the worktop and only relied on its historic records, which in the Ombudsman’s view contained contradictory information, in reaching its decision on the matter.  
28. The landlord’s handling of the complaint was unsatisfactory as:
    1. It delayed in responding to the complaint by approximately six months.
    2. Its decision to exclude the resident’s complaint from its complaint procedure was unreasonable as the issue which she raised was new, as the damage to the worktop occurred after the complaint responses it had issued in March 2018 and October 2019.
    3. It failed to address the resident’s concerns regarding delays by its legal team. 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

29. The landlord should pay the resident £250 compensation for not demonstrating fair consideration of her concerns regarding the kitchen worktop.
30. The landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation in respect of its complaint handling.
31. The landlord should inspect the property to determine whether the damage to the kitchen worktop is a repair for which it is responsible for and then write to the resident to confirm the outcome of this inspection and to set out whether it will carry out any further work in respect of this.
32. The landlord should comply with the orders within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

33. The landlord should share the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with its staff members who deal with complaints to ensure that complaints are dealt with in accordance with best practice.