Great Places Housing Association (202303133)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303133

Great Places Housing Association

18 November 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:
1. Handling of kitchen and bathroom renewal work.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s contractors.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident had an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. In October 2023, the tenant moved out of the property and is no longer a tenant of the landlord.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on its systems. The resident has told the Ombudsman that he is confident the landlord was aware of some of his vulnerabilities.
Prior to April 2022 (date unknown) the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm his property was due for a possible renewal of its kitchen and bathroom.
In July 2022 the landlord surveyed the property, and the kitchen and bathroom were renewed in August 2022. There were some outstanding snagging issues and a damaged cooker and washing machine. The resident agreed to a £194 goodwill gesture for the cooker, outside of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure.
On 18 October 2022 the resident witnessed, through his CCTV, the landlord’s contractor entering his property unannounced. The landlord’s contractor apologised and explained what the visit was for. This incident did not form part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord. The washing machine legs were delivered to the resident by the end of October 2022.
In January 2023 the resident told his landlord that its contractor had agreed to fit an internal air vent in the kitchen. The landlord did not agree and told the resident vents were not included in the kitchen refurbishment specification. The resident complained to the landlord about:
1. The delays completing the renewals of the kitchen and bathroom.
2. The operatives conduct including:
  1. Allowing a neighbour to access the property.
  2. Leaving the resident’s dogs in a bedroom with no food or water all day.
  3. Damage to cooker, washing machine and a ‘scentsy burner.’
  4. Poor workmanship.
The resident was not happy with the landlord’s stage 1 response and escalated to stage 2 of its internal complaint process. He wanted compensation and apologies from those involved. He was disappointed the landlord had not contacted him through the investigation. The landlord asked the resident for an extension of the deadline for its response. The resident refused the request. On 24 April 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response and found:
1. The landlord’s contractors had spoken to the resident and offered £200 compensation for the incident with the resident’s dogs and had wallpapered an area damaged by the dogs.
2. The resident was responsible for the care of his pets.
3. There was a delay in fitting the vent and offered £50 compensation.
4. There was a delay in the stage 2 complaint response and the landlord apologised and offered £50 compensation.
The landlord apologised for any distress caused and determined the landlord had not failed in its service to the resident.

Post internal complaints process

In June 2023 the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate. The resident moved out of the property in October 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said that he had suffered distress and mental anguish, and he said this was because of the landlord’s handling of the renewal works in his property. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s comments, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if he considers that his health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue this option. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced because of the landlord’s handling of the situation involving his property.

Kitchen and bathroom renewal work

The kitchen and bathroom renewals were programmed to take 2 weeks. The landlord’s records show that work began on 16 August 2022 and most of the work was completed by 31 August 2022. This was 12 working days. Due to some snagging issues further works took place in September 2022, and the work was checked and handed back to the landlord on 30 September 2022. The Ombudsman can empathise that the work and additional visits were disruptive to the resident especially as he worked full time for long days. However, it can be expected that some snagging issues may occur and the date by which the kitchen and bathroom were functional rooms was reasonable. In this case the landlord should have managed the expectations of the resident when it provided them with completion dates and work duration times.
On 16 December 2022 one of the resident’s pipes had frozen and he said it was because of the kitchen installation. The landlord responded quickly and asked the resident why he thought this. It was reasonable of the landlord to seek an explanation. Once provided, the landlord did not agree with the resident, explained why and said it did not lag pipework or relocate pipes. The resident noted in his stage 2 escalation that he found the emails rude. The Ombudsman has reviewed the emails between both parties and found them to be to the point. While the Ombudsman does not find a failing in this matter, the landlord may want to consider whether a more supportive, empathetic tone could have been used.
The landlord arranged for its contractors to assess the situation. After 21 days the resident had to contact the landlord to chase the contractor as he had not heard from them. There followed some confusion as the contractor verbally agreed to fit an air vent and the landlord told the resident it would not fit one. The landlord acted unreasonably. It did not demonstrate effective management of the situation, and this caused the resident to make a complaint. Its mismanagement caused a delay to the final decision on the air vent.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response confirmed the landlord had agreed to fit the vent and its contractors would contact the resident to arrange an appointment. It apologised for the delay, citing resourcing. The landlord had acknowledged that the contractor had told the resident something would be done and honoured that agreement. The landlord acted reasonably. it was customer focused and fair.
In his stage 2 escalation the resident said the delay to the air vent was not because of resourcing but because of the landlord’s initial refusal to agree to it. The landlord looked at the delay from the point an air vent was agreed, while the resident sees the delay from the time he requested an air vent. There was a misunderstanding as to what the complaint was, and the landlord should have spoken to the resident to fully understand the issue. The landord acted unreasonably. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not investigate the delays in making the decision, only the delays from the point an air vent was agreed.
From the point the resident asked for an air vent it took 20 working days for the landlord to make a decision. It then took 34 working days to complete the work. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for the inconvenience. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance £100 would have been a fair remedy in recognition of a failure that had a short-term impact but caused the resident distress and inconvenience. £100 is a fairer remedy that also considers the miscommunication that led to the delays on the air vent decision.
In summary, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the kitchen and bathroom renewals. While most of the works were completed in a reasonable timeframe, some delays were caused by miscommunication. An order in recognition of this is made below.

Contractor’s conduct

The Ombudsman’s investigation has focused on how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about contractor’s conduct, rather than the actual conduct of the staff. Staff or contractor conduct is an issue for the landlord to address internally and it is not for the Ombudsman to investigate.
When receiving a report about staff or contractor conduct, the landlord would be expected to investigate the contact and incidents, to satisfy itself whether it was appropriate. The landlord’s customer feedback policy tells us that complaints about staff would be passed to the individual’s line manager who would investigate and respond. It is not clear if this procedure extends to complaints about contractors.
On 21 February 2023, the resident complained about the contractors, specifically the incident where he says they let a neighbour into his house and his dogs got shut in the bedroom all day, with no water or food. The landlord took some reasonable steps to investigate by:
1. Exploring its housing management system.
2. Speaking to the senior surveyor.
3. Speaking to the contractors.
The landlord’s stage 1 response gave an outline of what happened that day. It said that dogs could not be in the same vicinity while the works were being completed. While this was an understandable rule, the landlord did not explain how this scenario was allowed to happen in the first place. The landlord did not explain what went wrong and if it found any fault in anyone’s actions. It also did not look at how to learn from the complaint. There are several factors in this incident that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, would warrant further investigation and possible policy or procedure changes. They are:
1. Was the resident made aware that his dogs should not be in the same vicinity as the works. Were there any policies or rules around situations where residents let the landlord work in their property when they are out, but pets remain in the property.
2. Was there a procedure in place between the landlord and the contractor as to what actions they should take if they find themselves in this kind of scenario.
3. With no explicit instruction from the resident to allow the neighbour into the house, why did they allow that to happen. What could be put in place to prevent it from happening again.
4. The welfare of the dogs once shut in a room, in the absence of the resident.
5. The fact that on other days the works went ahead, with the dogs in the property.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response confirmed that it had completed a case review and fed back issues to the contractor to ensure the issues experienced did not happen again. While this is a positive action there was not any detail of what, if any, changes would be made. More detail may have helped the resident feel that an inquisitorial review had taken place. The landlord acted unreasonably, it did not investigate thoroughly enough or think holistically about the dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes. The resident wanted a full investigation and review of the matter, and this did not happen.
As part of its investigation the landlord found that the contractor’s offers of compensation were fair and proportionate. The Ombudsman finds that, in line with its remedies guidance, for a failing that was not permanent but had an adverse effect on the resident, the financial remedies were fair. The contractor offered the resident:
1. £200 compensation for their failings.
2. £194 goodwill gesture for the broken cooker.
3. New legs for the washing machine.
4. A new ‘scentsy burner.’
There was a lack of evidence available of the resident’s communication with the landlord’s contractor. It is evident that throughout the life of this case that the lack of information, lack of clear contact records from its contractor impacted the landlord’s ability to fully investigate and address the resident’s complaints at both stage 1 and 2. The landlord is ordered to improve its record-keeping processes with its contractors to ensure that it keeps records of all communication with residents to provide an audit trail in the event of disputes about contractor conduct.
In summary, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its contractor’s conduct. While the landlord did investigate and checked the compensation offered was fair, it did not go far enough to try and put things right and learn from outcomes. There was no apology for the incident with the dogs. Orders in recognition of these failings are made below.

Associated complaint handling

Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint handling did not fully adhere to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman has already assessed and determined on the landlord’s investigation into the contractor’s conduct. This did form part of the complaint handling as it was brought to the landlord as a complaint. However, it would be unfair to issue a determination twice, and for this reason, that part of the complaint is not assessed again here.
The resident complained on 21 February 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 4 working days later. It was sent within the timescales outlined in paragraph 4.1 of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time. The landlord’s customer feedback policy at the time did not provide a timescale for its formal complaint acknowledgements. The landlord has since amended its policy, and it is in line with the 2024 Code.
On 10 March 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. This was 9 working days after the landlord’s acknowledgement. The landlord acted appropriately, sending the response within the timescale stipulated in its customer feedback policy and the Code.
On 13 March 2023, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. This was not acknowledged until 23 March 2023, following the resident’s 20 March 2023 email to the landlord’s chief executive officer. Although the landlord’s policy did not have a timescale for acknowledgements, this delay was not acceptable, nor in keeping with the code. The landlord acted unreasonably, and it may have contributed to the resident’s expressed feeling that the landlord’s service was below the standard expected.
On 21 April 2023, the day the landlord’s stage 2 response was due, the landlord asked the resident for an extension due to some unexpected leave by the person writing the response. In most cases it would not be reasonable to ask for an extension on the due date and it would not demonstrate a well-managed complaint case. However unexpected leave cannot be helped, nor expected, and it was reasonable of the landlord to ask for an extension.
On 24 April 2024, the resident refused the extension. Paragraph 5.15 of the Code tells us that when an agreement cannot be reached the landlord should provide the resident with the Ombudsman’s contact details. In this case the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on the same day, and it is the Ombudsman opinion that this cancelled out the need to provide our details for the purpose of the extension refusal. The landlord acted reasonably and got its response to the resident.
From the date the resident escalated his complaint, it took 28 working days to provide the stage 2 response. This was due to the delay in the landlord’s acknowledgment of the escalation. The landlord’s customer feedback policy at the time told residents to expect a response 20 working days from the acknowledgement. Following this policy the response was only 1 working day late. The Code at the time differed and paragraph 5.13 stated that landlords must respond within 20 working days of escalation. The landlord’s policy at the time was unfair. With no set timescale for an acknowledgement the landlord could prolong the time it took for the residents to receive their complaint outcomes and still be within its policy guidelines. The landlord’s policy was unreasonable and as mentioned above has since been updated. The Code and the landlord’s policy are now much clearer on timeframes and when they start from.
The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged the delay and apologised for it. It offered a payment of £50 for the inconvenience. This was more than its compensation policy guidelines at the time, however the policy allowed for higher amounts following a discussion and authorisation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests a payment of £50 to £100 where the landlord’s failure may have caused inconvenience and distress but was for a short duration. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s offer a fair remedy, in all the circumstances.
In summary, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s associated complaint handling. It offered a fair remedy for the delays to its stage 2 complaint response. This finding assumes that this compensation will be paid, if not done so already.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the kitchen renewal work.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of operatives.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise for the impact its failings had on the resident.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200, made up of:
1. £50 for the renewal delays, offered at stage 2 of the complaint process, if not done so already.
2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failings in relation to its handling of the kitchen and bathroom renewals.
3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failings in relation to its response to the resident’s concerns about contractor’s conduct.
4. This must be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any rent arrears or other amount owed.
In accordance with paragraph 54. g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review conducted by a senior manager to ensure:
1. The contract management is examined to clarify the responsibility, process, and timescales for resolving any issues arising from site visits for renewal works.
2. The communication and record keeping practices with its contractors is examined to ensure detailed, accessible records are kept for communication between residents and contractors.
3. The resident experiences the same advice and levels of service from the landlord and its contractor. The contractor and landlord should be in full alignment when dealing with residents.
4. Procedures are examined that manage situations where operatives or contractors are working in properties where pets are present without the resident.
5. That there is an examination of, or a consideration to make literature available or be given to residents, to advise them on the landlord’s rules around pets when the landlord and its representatives visit the property.
6. That any process changes or associated training from the review are implemented or planned.
7. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 12 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to check that the resident has received £200 compensation from the contractor (evidence of the other payments / goods has been seen by the Ombudsman) and if not, to ensure the contractor pays it.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to pay the resident the £50 complaint handling compensation offered at stage 2 of the complaint process, if not done so already.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to review its procedure for recording residents’ known vulnerabilities and ensure there is an awareness of the procedure across the organisation.