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

ForHousing Limited (202301498)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301498

ForHousing Limited

30 April 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
  2. On or around 18 November 2022 the resident requested the landlord replace the damaged kitchen unit doors. The landlord attended the property on 8 December 2022 but was unable to complete the work as it had ordered the wrong sized doors.
  3. The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 15 December 2022. They complained about the incorrect measuring of the doors and the delay this mistake had caused.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 January 2023. It apologised for the delay and offered £25 compensation for the service failure. It stated it would attend on 13 January 2023 to complete the repair.
  5. On 13 January 2023 the landlord attended the property but was again unable to complete the repair. It has advised this service this was because it had not identified that the repair required ‘special order’ materials which had not come into stock.
  6. The landlord attended again on 23 January 2023 but the resident refused the repair. This was because the landlord had not been able to obtain doors which matched the remaining kitchen units.
  7. The resident submitted a stage 2 complaint on 30 January 2023. They stated they were not happy with the offered compensation as they had missed 4 days of work due to missed visits. They also stated they would not accept mis-matched doors.
  8. The landlord notified the resident on 2 March 2023 that it needed further time to respond. It issued its stage 2 response on 16 March 2023. It apologised for not advising the resident that where it could not obtain the same colour and style replacement it would obtain a ‘best match’. It also apologised for the failed appointments and offered an additional £100 in compensation.

Events after the end of the complaints procedure

  1. The landlord has advised this service that it replaced the resident’s kitchen in March 2024 as part of its ‘ad hoc scheme’.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete routine repairs within 30 working days.
  2. The landlord’s first attendance at the property was in line with this policy. The later visits were outside the policy. However, they were within 30 working days of the correct door measurements being taken. While the incorrect measurements did cause a delay there is no evidence the landlord did not act promptly once it had corrected this mistake.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was appropriate. It recognised its failure and provided the resident with a specific timescale for completing the repairs. It was reasonable for it to offer a small sum of compensation for the service failure.
  4. There is no dispute the landlord failed to complete the repairs on the provided date. It was a failure to have not identified the required materials were not in stock before attending the resident’s property. The landlord should have identified this and provided the resident with sufficient notice that it would need to rearrange the appointment. This would have meant the resident would not have needed to take unnecessary time off work.
  5. Where a landlord cannot obtain replacement items that are the same colour or style it is reasonable for it to provide the best match it can obtain. The landlord would not be required to replace additional, non-damaged, items to ensure everything matches.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged that it should have made the resident aware it could not replace the damaged doors with identical replacements. This was appropriate and indicated the landlord had recognised its failure.
  7. The landlord offered a further £100 (£25 for each of the 4 failed appointments) in line with its compensation policy. This was an appropriate outcome.
  8. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord stated it would continue to attempt to source matching doors and had approached alternative suppliers. This was a reasonable step to take and demonstrates the landlord had a customer focused approach.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable for its handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen.