Midland Heart Limited (202234429)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234429

Midland Heart Limited

29 February 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 handling of:
1. the repairs to the resident’s kitchen.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since November 1999. The resident’s tenure is a weekly fair rent tenancy. The property is a 5 bedroom house.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete routine repairs within 28 days and that it is responsible for repairing leaks and sinks. It also states that it will keep residents informed at all times and provide clear information to them at all stages. The landlord’s website states it “understands how important it is to make sure everything is working as it should”.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaint policy. It states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It also states that it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 within 20 working days. It will explain to the resident its reasons should it need longer and will respond to each element of a complaint.

Summary of events

The resident first reported an issue with her kitchen worktop on 25 January 2018. She said the worktop was “rotting”. Between January 2019 and March 2019, the landlord attended to the matter several times. In March 2019, it identified that there was a leak from the kitchen tap which caused water ingress into the worktop. The landlord noted that it had said to the resident it could replace the worktop but not install a new sink. It explained to the resident that due to the age of the kitchen the replacement worktop may not be like for like. It noted that the resident was dissatisfied with its advice. The landlord’s records did not show what repairs, if any, it took during that time to address the matter.
In 2020 and 2021, the repairs logs showed that the resident made 2 further reports about a leak causing water ingress into the kitchen worktop. The landlord carried out some remedial work in 2021. It reiterated its offer to replace the damaged worktop, which the resident refused and said this was because it could not match the replacement worktop to the rest of the kitchen.
On 5 May 2022, the landlord noted that it attended the property to repair the kitchen tap which was loose. It informed the resident that a new worktop was needed. It noted that the resident said she wanted a like for like replacement and the landlord to reinstall her current sink. The operative noted that he had reported the outcome of his visit to management.
On 14 November 2022, the landlord noted that it reiterated its offer to replace the worktop and sink, which the resident refused. The resident said her kitchen’s worktops were white with a marble effect. She said the landlord offered her a black replacement, which did not match the rest of her kitchen.
The evidence provided did not show whether any actions or contacts took place between mid-November 2023 and January 2023.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 7 February 2023. The complaint was about:
1. A staff member avoiding her. She said she attempted to make contact with the staff several times over 11 months with no success.
2. The handling of the repairs to her kitchen worktop.
3. Distress caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs and its lack of respect towards her.
In an internal email on the 13 February 2023, the landlord said that 3 days earlier it had repaired the leak to the kitchen tap. It noted that it had also applied sealant around the sink and fitted aluminium edging strips. It reiterated that a new worktop was required but the resident had previously refused this. It said the kitchen was due to be reviewed as part of the planned work programme, and a better solution might be to wait and replace the whole kitchen.
The landlord contacted the resident on 22 February 2023 to acknowledge that it had received the resident ‘s complaint on 10 February 2023.
The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 23 February 2023. It was as follows:
1. It acknowledged that the issues with the worktop and sink were initially reported in 2018 and some repairs had been completed.
2. The resident contacted the landlord to discuss the issue in May 2022, it acknowledged that it had failed to return the call.
3. It offered a replacement work top to the resident in November 2022. The resident refused as it did not match her kitchen.
4. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 February 2023, it attended 3 days later and completed a repair to the sink to stop the leak, it also assessed the work top. It explained it was happy to replace the worktop and sink, but it would not match the current worktop.
5. It confirmed that the resident’s kitchen was to be renewed in 2023/2024. It agreed to survey and design the kitchen by December 2023. The landlord asked the resident to confirm whether she wanted the work top to be replaced or wanted to wait for the kitchen to be renewed.
6. It had listened to the call the resident made on 10 February 2023, and agreed it could have been handled more effectively. It also acknowledged that it had not communicated effectively with her about the repairs.
7. It apologised and offered to pay the resident £205 in compensation. It said it was equivalent to £100 for inconvenience and the impacts of the repeated visits, £35 to reflect the poor call handling, £70 to reflect its poor communication.
On 2 March 2023, the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She shared her reasons for the request over several emails to the landlord during March 2023. The resident felt the compensation offered did not reflect that the issue had remained unresolved for over 4 years. She also said that during that time, the landlord’s communication had been poor. She explained this had caused her distress and made her feel that the landlord had not listened to her. The resident said the landlord had failed to send her a letter as agreed to confirm it had escalated her complaint to stage 2.
The landlord’s repairs logs noted that on 10 March 2023, it applied sealant around the sink. The resident confirmed that the landlord had fixed the leak in February 2023. The landlord noted that the resident refused the worktop offered as it was a different colour to her existing worktop. It also noted that the resident said she was happy to wait for a resolution until her new kitchen was fitted.
The landlord issued it stage 2 response on 28 March 2023. It was as followed follows:
1. It confirmed the repairs to the sink were completed and the resident had agreed not to have a temporary worktop installed as her kitchen was due to be replaced in 2023/2024.
2. It apologised for the poor service the resident had received when calling the landlord, its poor communication in the handling of the repairs and her replacement kitchen.
3. It confirmed the failings had been discussed with all involved to facilitate learning and prevent this happening again in the future.
4. It acknowledged that the resident felt the compensation it had offered had not reflected the failings and their impact. To reflect the time taken to resolve the issues and the poor service the resident experienced, it offered to pay £470 in compensation to the resident.
On 31 March 2023, the resident informed the landlord she remained dissatisfied with its response and requested a review. She said she was dissatisfied because:
1. The landlord had not responded to the fact that her requests for a meeting with a staff member had been overlooked. She elaborated that at the time, she had requested a meeting, as she had felt the landlord had not understood her concerns about the kitchen. She also said that the staff had failed to return her call for over 4 years.
2. She had requested a paper copy of the stage 2 response, and the landlord sent its response via email.
3. She felt the level of compensation did not reflect that the issue went on for 5 years and that the staff member she complained about was still involved in dealing with her kitchen.

Post internal complaint process

The landlord’s records showed that in September 2023, the resident’s kitchen replacement was in process.
On 12 October 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it had reviewed the resident’s complaint. It said that, whilst gathering the evidence requested by this Service, it had identified further failings and did not feel that it had adequately addressed those during the complaint process. The outcome of its review was as follows:
1. The resident had first reported issues with the kitchen in January 2018. It acknowledged that it had compensated the resident for the delays in finding a permanent resolution to the matter. However, it did not feel that this offer reflected the resident’s experience.
2. Whilst the process to review and replace the resident’s kitchen had started, the landlord said it wanted to offer the resident further redress for the inconvenience its failings had on the resident.
3. It acknowledged its failure to respond to her complaint within its published time frame. It said it also identified that its communication with the resident during the complaint process had been poor. Therefore, it decided to offer further compensation to reflect its poor complaint handling. It apologised to the resident and confirmed it had provided training to its staff on effective complaint handling.
4. It reiterated that during its handling of the repairs, its communication had been poor. It said it had acknowledged this as part of the complaint process. However, on reflection, it realised that it had not informed the resident that it had addressed this with the staff involved. It shared that it put steps in place to identify and manage such issues if they happened again in the future. It also said it had decided to offer the resident further compensation to reflect its poor communication.
5. It agreed to offer compensation to the resident for the damaged caused to her washing machine.
6. The landlord said it agreed to pay £2,120 in compensation to reflect its failings and the impact on the resident. It said this was inclusive of the previous offer and was equivalent to:
  1. £470 (previously paid for length of time to resolve the matter and poor communication).
  2. £600 to reflect the delays in finding a suitable resolution and the impact of this.
  3. £400 to reflect its poor complaint handling.
  4. £300 to reflect its poor communication during its handling of the repairs.
  5. £350 for the cost of the washing machine.

Assessment and findings

The repairs to the resident’s kitchen

The resident has reported ongoing issues with her kitchen tap, sink and worktop since 2018. The landlord attended the property several times and confirmed that there was a problem with water ingress into the worktop, which caused it to rot.
The landlord’s policy and website say it will complete routine repairs within 28 days. and keep the resident informed on the status of the repairs at all times. Its website also says it will repair leaks and sinks.
In this case, the evidence seen shows that between 2018 and 2020, the landlord made recommendations to resolve the issue such as replacing the worktop. However, the repair log shows that it first carried out remedial repairs in 2021, when it applied sealant around the sink. This was not in keeping with its policy to repair issues with leaks and sinks or to complete routine repairs within 28 days. The landlord did not show that, during that time, it explained to the resident its reasons for not attempting repairs. It did not demonstrate that it had kept the resident informed on what its next step would be to resolve the problem, as per its policy.
Additionally, the landlord identified in 2019, that the kitchen tap was leaking and had contributed to the worktop being damaged. The repairs log shows that the leak was fixed approximately 4 years later. The landlord offered no explanation for the delay in fixing the leak and has not shown that it kept the resident informed during that time. An unresolved leak can cause significant damage over time, with the issue worsening if not addressed. This was an unreasonable delay, the landlord failed to comply with its obligations and policy to complete the repairs within a reasonable timeframe. It also showed a lack of urgency in dealing with the issue and a lack of understanding how the issue impacted on a resident’s daily life.
It is recognised that the landlord offered to replace the resident’s damaged worktop several times since 2018. This was in accordance with its obligations as a landlord to carry out appropriate repairs within its properties. It is also acknowledged that the landlord informed the resident it could not provide her with a like for like replacement due to the kitchen’s age. This was reasonable and understandable, as designs change over time and it is not always possible to find an exact match when replacing an item.
However, the resident said that her kitchen worktops were white with a marble effect. She explained that the landlord offered her a black replacement worktop which did not match the rest of her kitchen. It is recognised that it can be difficult to find a like for like replacement and that the landlord is not obliged to match the design only provide a functional replacement. However, in the interest of fostering a good resident-landlord relationship, it would be good practice for a landlord to seek a resolution that is satisfactory for the resident.
Whilst the landlord was not obliged to match the replacement worktop, it is unclear why the landlord could not find a closer match and offered a black worktop instead. It is reasonable to assume that it would have been possible to find a white worktop. It would be reasonable to expect the landlord could have improved his offer to the resident over the period of time with little cost or inconvenience to its service delivery. This impacted on the resident-landlord relationship, the resident felt misunderstood and that the landlord “did not care”.
The evidence shows that there was a theme of poor communication on the part of the landlord for the duration of the disrepair to the kitchen. The records show that, every time the resident refused its offer to replace the worktop, it would stop communicating with her. For example, in 2022, the operative noted that it said to the resident it had informed management that she had refused its offer to replace the worktop. At that point, it would have been reasonable and in line with the principles of dispute resolution for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss solutions. Instead, it had no further contact with the resident for 6 months.
This pattern repeated itself for 5 years, every time the resident reported the issue, the landlord would reiterate its offer and the resident would refuse. It would have been within reason to expect the landlord to explore a more acceptable resolution with the resident. The resident said this made her feel ignored and it impacted on her relationship with the landlord.
Additionally, the resident said that, for 11 months, she made several requests to discuss the issue of the worktop and repairs to her kitchen with the landlord. She said her requests were ignored. The evidence seen does not show that the landlord responded to or acknowledged the resident’s requests. This was poor communication on the part of the landlord, which was not in keeping with its policy of keeping residents informed at all times. It was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to discuss the issue with the resident and negotiate a solution suitable to all parties. This further delayed a resolution to the issue and caused additional further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Furthermore, the resident complained about the landlord’s poor communication throughout the complaint process. Whilst it is recognised that the landlord acknowledged this in its complaint responses, it did not go far enough. It failed to fully acknowledge that, for nearly a year, it had failed to respond to the resident’s requests for a meeting. The evidence shows that it was important to the resident to have this element of her complaint addressed. It should not have taken her 3 attempts to get the landlord to respond, which it did 7 months later. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with the landlord’s complaint policy to address all points of a complaint. It was also unreasonable, distressing and inconvenient to leave the resident without a response for a considerable amount of time.
The Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report says that good records are essential. It assists landlords to deliver efficient and effective services. It also provides an audit trail. The evidence seen raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping. For instance, as mentioned above, the resident made several requests to meet with the landlord. However, there is no evidence that the landlord recorded her contacts and requests. This was inappropriate from the landlord and was not in line with its obligations to keep an audit trail and accurate records. In this case, if it had, it may have realised prior to the resident making a complaint that it had failed to respond to her requests. Those failings contributed to the resident’s poor experience and her feelings of being ignored.
The landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised to the resident and made several offers of compensation to the resident. Following the Ombudsman involvement in the case, the landlord increased the level of compensation and made a final offer of redress to the resident. It is acknowledged that the compensation offered by the landlord exceeds that which would be recommended by the Ombudsman in this case, under its remedies guidance. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord has an established understanding of its relationship with the resident and that the landlord has considered its award suitable remedy in all of the circumstances. Therefore, in this case, the Ombudsman has ordered £1720 in line with the landlord’s offer of compensation to reflect the failings.
In summary, the landlord failed to act in accordance with its repairs policy. It failed to carry out the repairs within a reasonable time frame. It did not keep the resident informed or communicate effectively with her. It did not go far enough to try to resolve the issue or offer a suitable resolution to the resident. It also failed to keep accurate records of the events. Therefore, the Ombudsman determines that there was maladministration on the part of the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s kitchen.

The associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. The resident made a complaint on 7 February 2023. The landlord acknowledged it 9 working days later, which is not in keeping with its policy of acknowledging complaints within 5 working days.
On 31 March 2023, the resident said that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaint and asked for a further review. The landlord reviewed its responses to her complaint and provided her with its revised response in October 2023. Whilst we encourage landlords to revisit their complaint responses, in this case it appears this was triggered by the involvement of this Service rather than the resident’s original request.
The landlord concluded that it had identified further failings in its handling of the repairs and had not addressed those during the complaint process. It informed the resident that in light of this, it had provided training to its team on effective complaint handling. It also said that it had not adequately informed the resident of the actions it took to prevent repeating the failings in its handling of the repairs. It apologised to the resident for its failings and offered to pay the resident compensation to reflect its poor complaint handling. Those were reasonable and appropriate actions for the landlord to take, it demonstrated learning and commitment to prevent those failings from happening again in keeping with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
The landlord offered to pay £400 to the resident to reflects its failings. The Ombudsman determines that the amount offered is reasonable compensation for the failings identified, but as it was made after we had begun our investigation a finding of reasonable redress cannot be reached.
In summary, once the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman, the landlord reviewed its handling of her complaint. It said it had not acknowledged the full extent of its failings whilst handling the resident’s kitchen repairs and failed to demonstrate what it had learnt. After considering all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman determines there was a service failure on the part of the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s kitchen repairs. .
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to complete the repairs to the resident’s kitchen within a reasonable time frame. It also failed to communicate effectively with the resident throughout the period of disrepairs to her kitchen. It also failed to demonstrate that it suitably attempted to resolve the matter.
The landlord did not acknowledge the stage 1 complaint within its published timeframe. It failed to fully identify and recognise its failing during its investigations into the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay £2,120 in compensation directly to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report. If the landlord has already paid the compensation to the resident, the landlord is to provide evidence to this Service that it had done so.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord self-assesses it record keeping against the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report.