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

First Choice Homes Oldham Limited (202315772)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315772

First Choice Homes Oldham Limited

26 March 2025


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. Handling of the resident’s reports of delays in completing kitchen improvements and damages caused when his kitchen was replaced.  
    2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The tenancy started in May 2022.

Summary of events

  1. On 14 February 2023, the resident agreed to have his kitchen replaced as part of improvement works. This included that the resident had chosen the design of his kitchen such as the colour of worktops, flooring, and kitchen unit doors.
  2. The landlord contacted the resident on 20 February 2023 and confirmed that kitchen works were starting on 21 March 2023. It confirmed that the work would take approximately 12 working days to be completed.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 5 April 2023. The resident said he was very unhappy with the service he received from the landlord’s contractors. He said that during work to upgrade his kitchen the landlord’s contractor broke his tv stand and a picture frame. Also, a contractor stood on his sofa to drill a hole in the wall. Further to this, when its contractor’s replumbed the washing machine it caused a leak. The resident said he was seeking compensation due to the kitchen renewal taking 3 weeks. Additionally, it to attend to replumb the washing machine and clean plaster marks on the wall.
  4. The resident went on to say the landlord failed to remove the dust after work had taken place which impacted on his health. He advised that due to the delays in replacing the kitchen he had to pay for takeaway food and laundry costs as he did not have a kitchen. The resident requested that the further identified repairs be completed but with an alternative contractor.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 19 April 2023. The landlord said:
    1. As part of its investigation it contacted its contractors, however, it was awaiting their report. The landlord said once it received the report it would arrange repairs.
    2. It confirmed it was unable to change contractors as it had a contract with them to complete repairs. Therefore, the landlord requested that the resident allow access.
    3. It said once repairs had been completed it would review compensation.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 July 2023. He said he was seeking £1,000 in compensation to cover his distress and inconvenience and for the negative impact it had on his physical and mental wellbeing. The resident said he was seeking more compensation as repairs works were prolonged.
  7. The landlord contacted the resident on 28 July 2023. It said its inspection found that work had been completed to an acceptable standard. The landlord was satisfied with the compensation offered by its contractor of £350 or £100 plus for it to decorate the lounge. Therefore, it was not looking to increase the compensation offered.
  8. In bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident is seeking a higher amount of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has reported damage to his personal belongings. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the upset that may be caused by damaged personal items, it is important to explain that the Ombudsman cannot make decisions on liability for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. Where a landlord’s action or inactions may have contributed to the damage of a resident’s belongings landlords should refer residents to its insurers and assist with claims where needed. However, this Service can look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports, any advice or guidance it offered, and whether it followed its policy and procedure. Where this Service finds a failing in these areas, we will consider awarding compensation for any inconvenience and distress caused.
  2. The resident informed the Ombudsman the landlord’s handling of the matters under review in this investigation had a negative impact on his health and wellbeing. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, we will consider any impact that resulted in distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of delays in completing kitchen improvements and damages caused when his kitchen was replaced.  

  1. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to relevant legislation, its policies and procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The tenancy agreement required the landlord to keep in proper working order any installation. This mirrored its repair obligations of section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, that a repair must be completed within a reasonable period of time.
  3. The landlord’s repair policy sets out target times for repairs. This states it will complete emergency repairs within 3 hours and non-emergency routine repairs within 20 days.
  4. The landlord has confirmed it does not have a policy for improvement works or planned works. Additionally, it does not keep a record of repairs for improvement works such as kitchen renewals. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs published in 2019 states that landlords should keep clear records of resident’s reports of disrepair. Also, it should keep accurate records of works it has completed. Further, it should communicate with residents regarding the progress of works. The lack of records provided potentially affected the landlord’s ability to provide a comprehensive response to the resident’s complaint, and this investigation. This was not reasonable, and a recommendation has been made regarding this.
  5. The resident in his complaint said that works took 3 weeks to be completed. It is unclear when works were completed but the records show a handover was completed on 24 May 2023. The landlord should keep accurate records of improvement records. It is reasonable to expect a landlord to be able to provide these details upon request. However, the evidence that has been provided to this Service by the landlord has been minimal and inadequate, especially in relation to its improvement works. It has been unable to evidence that it kept full and detailed records of its actions or provide a clear audit trail of its actions. This is not reasonable as both the landlord and this Service should be able to provide accurate responses to residents’ complaints. 
  6. Despite the lack of records, it is clear that the landlord took longer than 12 working days it advised to complete the improvement works to the resident’s kitchen. There is no evidence that the landlord managed the resident’s expectations regarding its delay in completing improvement works. This left the resident in a position of uncertainty particularly, as during the renewal he was unable to access the kitchen for cooking. Also, he was unable to use his washing machine, meaning he had to access laundry facilities at his own cost.
  7. This was not reasonable as it should have oversight of improvement works by keeping in regular contact with its contractors. Additionally, providing regular updates to the resident to provide reassurance that it was taking matters seriously. Also, that it had a clear understanding of the impact it was having on his day to day living and finances.
  8. The records show that the landlord attended on 11 May 2023 to complete an inspection of its improvement works. The inspection identified that some further works were required. Whilst the landlord took appropriate action in completing an inspection, there was no written record of its findings only pictures. Therefore, this did not provide the level of detail reasonably expected to be recorded after an inspection. This was not reasonable as the landlord should have full oversight of required repairs to ensure it could take timely action.
  9. Following its inspection, the records show that further repairs were completed on 12 June 2023. This was within 20 workings days of the landlord completing its inspection. This was reasonable and in line with its routine repair obligations to complete repairs within 20 working days. The landlord’s internal records state that its contractors attempted to arrange an appointment to complete works sooner. However, the contractor said that the resident was only available on a Sunday. It is not unreasonable for the landlord to not attend on a Sunday as its repair policy is clear that repair appointments take place between Monday to Friday between 8am and 5pm and Saturday between 8am and 4pm. Additionally, this was outside the landlord’s control and limited the landlord ability to complete repairs.
  10. In terms of the resident’s complaint regarding damages to his personal belongings, there is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged this in its correspondence. The landlord also failed to consider the impact the delayed works were having on his finances. In the resident’s complaint to the landlord dated 5 April 2023 he said that the delayed works meant he was having to pay for takeaway food and also additional laundry costs due to the washing machine not being replumbed correctly. The landlord’s compensation policy states it can make a discretionary payment when a resident had suffered a material loss for example when possessions are damaged when repairs are undertaken. Therefore, the landlord should have considered awarding compensation during the complaint process. As it did not, this was not reasonable and not customer focused.
  11. At stage 1 of the complaint process, the landlord failed to acknowledge its delays in completing improvement works and its poor communication. It also did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint regarding damage to his personal belongings and the impact the works had on his finances. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to address its failings, remedy, and learn from these.
  12. In its stage 1 complaint response dated 19 April 2023 the landlord said that it would contact the resident after works had been completed to check if it could close the complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident regarding the complaint after this point. This was not reasonable as the landlord advised it would. This was not customer focused and may have caused the resident additional distress.
  13. In this case, the landlord only provided a stage 1 complaint response not a stage 2 response. However, paragraph 35 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that a complaint is duly made when it has exhausted, or the Ombudsman has decided it has exhausted, the member’s internal complaints processes for considering complaints. Therefore, for the purpose of this complaint this Service has accepted the landlord’s correspondence dated 28 July 2023 as its stage 2 complaint response.
  14. In its correspondence to the resident dated 28 July 2023 the landlord said it found that its improvement works were completed to an acceptable standard. It also found the compensation offered by its contractors to be appropriate. The compensation offered included £100 to cover the cost of damage to the resident’s picture. Also, it offered to complete redecoration works in the lounge. Alternatively, £100 in compensation plus £250 if the resident arranged his own redecoration works. Therefore, the landlord advised it was not looking to increase the compensation amount. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation and redecoration works. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider compensation for its failures in other parts of the complaint.
  15. Overall, the landlord failed to acknowledge parts of the resident’s complaint. This included that the landlord did not acknowledge the damage caused to the resident’s belongings. Also, it did not acknowledge the additional financial costs incurred by the resident as a result of the delayed improvement works to the kitchen and due to the washing machine not being replumbed correctly. This amounts to a service failure.
  16. When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service has considered the landlord’s own compensation guidelines. This states compensation between £50 and £100 will be awarded if there has been a service failure. As the landlord has not provided any compensation for its failures further compensation has been awarded. An order has also been made for the landlord regarding the resident’s material losses.

Complaint handling

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was introduced with the aim of improving complaint handling across the housing sector. As a member of the Scheme, the landlord is obliged to establish and maintain a complaints procedure in accordance with any good practice recommended by the Ombudsman.
  2. In accordance with its complaint’s procedure, the landlord’s response to residents’ complaints at stage 1 is required within 10 working days of the complaint and the stage 2 response in 20 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, this will be communicated to the resident.
  3. The resident initially complained to the landlord on 5 April 2023, the landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day. The landlord provided its response 10 working days later on 19 April 2023 which is in line with its own complaint procedure and the Code.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 July 2023 to request for compensation of £1,000. The landlord emailed the resident the same day to say it was satisfied with the compensation offered by its contractors. The landlord contacted the resident on 28 July 2023 and confirmed works had been completed to an acceptable standard. It also said it was not looking to provide further compensation.
  5. The landlord’s complaints procedure states that when it issues its complaint responses it will confirm the complaint stage. In this case, the landlord’s correspondence on 21 and 28 July 2023 did not stipulate its complaint stage. As the resident remained unhappy with this, he brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 29 September 2023.
  6. The landlord offered to provide a stage 2 complaint response in contact with this Service on 23 April 2024. This Service decided that the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaint process and found that its correspondence dated 21 and 28 July 2023 constituted its stage 2 response.
  7. It is this Service’s view that the resident clearly raised dissatisfaction with its stage 1 complaint response on 21 July 2023. In line with its complaint procedure and the Code the landlord should have contacted the resident and clarified that his email 21 July 2023 was a stage 2 escalation request. As this was not the case, the landlord missed an opportunity to put things right sooner. This amounts to a service failure.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of delays in completing kitchen improvements and damages caused when his kitchen was replaced.  
    2. The associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its handling of the resident’s reports of damages caused when his kitchen was replaced. Also, it should apologise for its poor complaint handling.
    2. Pay the resident £200 compensation in addition to what has already been offered by its contractors. This comprises of:
      1. £100 for any distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble that the resident experienced from its handling of his reports of damages caused when the kitchen was replaced.
      2. £100 to reflect its poor complaint handling.
    3. Meet with the resident to discuss his material loss and make a reasonable offer of compensation. This Service notes that due to the passage of time it is unlikely the resident will have receipts for the additional laundry and food costs. Therefore, the landlord should consider what is reasonable based on the household make up. Also, the period of time the resident without the kitchen and washing machine.
  2. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord consider the findings of this report and consider introducing an improvement works policy. Alternatively, to add improvement works to its repair policy.