Longhurst Group Limited (202304372)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304372

Longhurst Group Limited

21 August 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 the repairs to the resident’s kitchen floor.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has held an assured tenancy with the landlord since 2013.
On 7 June 2022 the resident raised a repair with the landlord to replace her damaged kitchen floor. She said she had found mould underneath the flooring and believed a recent leak in the kitchen was the cause of this. The landlord’s records show an appointment for 18 July 2022 was cancelled by the resident. A new appointment was booked in for 1 August 2022, but that appointment was unsuccessful as the operative lacked the necessary equipment needed. At the next appointment on 7 October 2022 the landlord was unable to access the property. The resident said she was not at home for the appointment as no notice had been given to her. The landlord booked in a new appointment for 12 December 2022 with the resident.
On the morning of 12 December 2022, the landlord cancelled the repair appointment due to staff illness. The resident told the landlord she was unhappy as she had arranged for her cooker to be disconnected and removed from the kitchen. A new appointment was scheduled for 17 December 2022. On this date, the repair did not take place as the landlord lacked the correct amount of vinyl flooring. The resident was given a new appointment for 4 January 2023 by the landlord.
The resident said she wanted the repair completed before Christmas. She asked whether the landlord would reimburse her costs if she appointed her own contractor to fit new flooring, in the kitchen. The evidence shows the landlord gave the resident permission, on 20 December 2022, to have her own kitchen flooring laid. However, the permission letter said the landlord did not agree to reimburse the cost of this or take responsibility for the new flooring.
On the same day, the repair log shows the resident called the landlord. It confirmed to her that it would not cover the cost of the flooring by a private contractor. It said it could attend on 22 December 2022, but the resident said she was unhappy the new vinyl was not a ‘like for like’ of her previous flooring.
On 29 December 2022 the resident complained to the landlord. She said she was ‘bitterly disappointed’ with the way she had been treated and the landlord’s delay in completing the repair. The resident told the landlord she paid for a private contractor to fit new flooring in her kitchen. She said she wanted the landlord to reimburse her £600 for the repair cost and accept responsibility for the future maintenance of the kitchen floor.
The landlord replied to the resident at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 14 March 2023, around 52 working days later. It said it had made it clear when it granted permission, that the cost of the repair or future maintenance would not be at the landlord’s expense. However, the landlord offered the resident £525 compensation for the delay in dealing with the repair and her complaint.
The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on the following day. She repeated her initial request that she wanted to be reimbursed for the cost of the repair and for the landlord to accept responsibility for the kitchen flooring in the future.
On 3 May 2023 the landlord replied to the resident, around 33 working days later, at stage 2 of its complaint process. It reiterated its response at stage1 that permission was given under the expressed terms of no cost or future responsibility to the landlord. However, it increased its compensation offer to £675 for the delays in the repair and complaint handling. It apologised for the inconvenience and upset caused to the resident.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service. She said she felt ‘pushed into a corner’ to organise her own repair to the kitchen flooring as she wanted it completed before Christmas time. The resident reiterated that she wanted reimbursement for the cost of the repair and for the landlord to take responsibility for future maintenance of the kitchen flooring.
The landlord told this Service it has since understood the resident had her own flooring fitted in the kitchen prior to the leak and subsequent damp found. It was therefore not the landlord’s responsibility to maintain or repair the kitchen flooring as per its repairs policy. However, it said as this information had been overlooked when the repair was raised by the resident, it decided to ‘honour’ the decision to replace the kitchen flooring.

Assessment and findings

The resident has expressed concerns about the effect the situation has had on her health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury are better suited to be decided by a court, which can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, where landlord failings are identified, the Ombudsman may give consideration to general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s kitchen floor

The resident’s tenancy agreement says if the landlord has provided flooring it will ‘repair and keep in good working condition’. The tenancy agreement also says the landlord will not maintain anything that a resident has added to the property.
The landlord has told this Service the resident had previously fitted her own kitchen flooring prior to the repair being raised. As such, the tenancy agreement stipulates that the resident was responsible for the repair to her kitchen flooring. However, the landlord did not realise this until 5 months after it had agreed to do the repair.
There was a reasonable level of expectation that had built up throughout the repairs and complaint process that the landlord was responsible for the repair. This was due to the length of time it took the landlord to identify the resident’s liability for the repair. It was also due to the level and extent of interaction that had taken place throughout the time period.
The landlord assumed responsibility throughout this period. There was emotion and time invested by the resident to the repairs and complaint process. It would be unfair to the resident to retrospectively not to investigate or examine the landlord actions as if it retained full responsibility for the repair throughout. As such, all of the landlord’s actions and handling of the complaint are in scope of this investigation.
On 7 June 2022 the resident raised the kitchen floor repair with the landlord as she had found mould underneath the flooring. She believed a recent leak in the kitchen was the cause of the mould. The landlord’s records show an appointment was booked in for around 41 calendar days later on 18 July 2022. Its repairs policy says routine repairs will be completed within 28 calendar days. This was a breach of its repairs policy as the repairs appointment exceeded the maximum number of days for a routine repair.
The evidence provided shows the repairs appointment on 18 July 2022 was cancelled by the resident due to illness. A new appointment was booked in for 1 August 2022. The landlord attended the property but was unable to lay new flooring, due to a lack of tools needed for the scale of the repair. The attendance at the appointment without the correct tools was an avoidable failure which compounded a poor level of service for the resident.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that if a repair cannot be completed during a visit, the resident must be provided with a new appointment before the operator leaves. There is no evidence to show this happened after the 1 August appointment and as such this was a breach of the landlord’s own repair policy.
Between 13 September and 4 October 2022, the resident called the landlord 3 times for an update. A call back for the resident was requested each time. There is no evidence to show whether the landlord called the resident back with an update or not. The landlord’s repair policy says the customer must be kept updated at all times. This was therefore a breach of the landlord’s policy.
The lack of communication for appointments by the landlord indicates poor customer service. This was avoidable and it exacerbated an already poor response to the resident’s repair. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident during this time.
The resident rang the landlord on 7 October 2022 to say she had received an appointment reminder for that day. However, she had not been previously made aware of the appointment and would not be able to give access to the property. No evidence has been provided to show that the landlord gave the resident notice for this appointment. Following this, the landlord offered the resident an appointment after Christmas. The resident was unhappy and, as such, a new appointment was given to her for 12 December 2022.
On the morning of 12 December 2022, the landlord cancelled the appointment due to staff sickness. The resident informed the landlord she was upset as she had arranged for her cooker to be disconnected and all items moved out of the kitchen. The floor was ‘back to concrete’ and she thought this was a ‘hazard’. The landlord’s inability to attend the appointment caused distress and further inconvenience to the resident. On the same day she contacted the landlord, and a new appointment was booked in for 17 December 2022.
The landlord attended on 17 December 2022, but the repair did not take place. The repair log notes that a 2-meter roll of flooring had been ordered instead of a 4 meter. It also notes the resident declined the fitting as there would be a ‘joint in the flooring’ and the replacement vinyl floor was not ‘like for like’. This shows poor planning by the landlord for this repair. The repeated failures by the landlord will have caused the resident to lose confidence in its ability to complete the repair.
On 20 December 2022 the resident rang the landlord and asked for permission to arrange her own repair to the kitchen flooring. She asked if it would reimburse her for the cost of this repair and take on future maintenance for the new flooring. The resident filled out an application form from the landlord’s website to formally request permission.
On the same day the landlord granted permission for the resident to arrange her own repair to the kitchen flooring. It advised the resident during a phone call it would not cover the cost of the repair. A permission letter was sent to the resident. It clearly stated the entire cost of the works and associated costs would be at no expense to the landlord, including all future maintenance.
The resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy say, ‘where permission is granted to a customer they will then become responsible for the maintenance, repair and future replacement of the item.’ The landlord adhered to the resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy when granting permission.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that a routine repair will be completed within 28 calendar days. However, between raising the repair and to Christmas 2022, the resident waited around 184 calendar days for the repair to be completed. The delay and lack of communication by the landlord was inappropriate. The delays involved were a breach of its repairs policy. This will have caused upset and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord failed to act fairly in allowing for the resident to arrange her own kitchen floor repair. The delay was due to the landlord’s failures to adhere to its own repair policy. In these circumstances it would have been reasonable for the landlord to allow flexibility in its policy. For example, the landlord could have signposted the resident to an approved subcontractor. The landlord’s failure to allow for flexibility locked the resident into a poor customer service experience for a further unspecified amount of time. This would have been compounded due to the time of year and the lead up to Christmas.
It is reasonable to expect that the resident wanted to enjoy spending time at home and the use of her kitchen during the holiday season. It is also reasonable to expect that the resident would not have envisaged it to have taken the landlord so long to complete the repair when raised, or that she would have been so adversely affected by the landlord’s repeated failures during the festive period when she had initially raised the repair.
On 29 December 2022 the resident complained to the landlord and said she was unhappy with the delay in getting the repair completed. She said she felt she had ‘no choice’ but to arrange a private contractor to lay new flooring. The resident said despite arranging her own repair she was unable to get her cooker reconnected before Christmas day. As a result, her family had a ‘cold buffet’ for Christmas lunch. She asked the landlord to reimburse her for the cost of the repair, to take responsibility for the repair delay and any maintenance of the flooring in the future.
The landlord replied to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process on 14 March 2023, 52 working days after she had raised her complaint. It said it managed the resident’s expectations when it granted her permission. It said it was clear that the landlord would not cover the cost of the repair by a private contractor or maintain the flooring in the future.
The landlord also said it had attempted to fit new flooring, but the resident was unhappy the new vinyl was not ‘like for like’. However, the landlord recognised failures in its service to the resident and offered her £525 comprising of;
1. £200 delay in work,
2. £75 delay in the complaint,
3. £50 for poor communication,
4. £200 for the inconvenience and upset.
In its response it recognised the failure it its service and the inconvenience the delay of the repair had on the resident. The landlord apologised and offered compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint 15 March 2023 with the landlord. She said there was a lack of communication from the landlord, and it had 5 months to complete the repair before she paid a private contractor to do it. She said the landlord twice attended but either didn’t have the tools or had incorrect sized flooring materials. The resident said she did not refuse flooring at any point. She said she would like the cost of the kitchen repair to be added to the compensation offered and for the landlord to accept future responsibility for the modification.
On 3 May 2023, 33 working days later, the landlord replied to the resident at stage 2 of its complaint process. It said that when the resident applied for permission to have flooring laid by her own contractor, it was understood she had agreed to the terms and conditions. The landlord referred to the permission letter given to the resident that said, ‘The entire cost of the works and associated costs are to be at no expense to the landlord, including all future maintenance.’
The landlord apologised for the delay in completing the repair to her kitchen floor and the distress it caused for the resident. It said it had tried to complete the repair as soon as the appropriate floor covering was available. It increased the offer of compensation to £675;
1. £225 delay in work,
2. £150 delay in the complaint,
3. £50 for poor communication,
4. £250 for the inconvenience and upset.
In summary, there was a significant delay to the landlord’s repairs process to complete the resident’s repair. There was repeated failures and poor customer service by the landlord. It is reasonable and understandable that the resident took matters into her own hands and arranged her own repair for the kitchen flooring.
It is evident the resident lost confidence in the landlord’s ability to fulfil the repair and to get it right. There was a lack of communication and substantial delays by the landlord regarding repair appointments. The landlord’s breach of its repairs policy was inappropriate. It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to keep in regular contact with the resident regarding. The adverse effect of not having a fully functioning kitchen at Christmas time compounded the situation for the resident and exacerbated landlord failures.
In the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 response it apologised for its failures. It attempted to put things right with an offer of compensation to the resident. The compensation offered is consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy. However, the resident was put in a situation where she felt she had no choice but to source her own repair. The situation was avoidable if the landlord had acted in a competent manner. It was understandable from the resident’s perspective, based on the levels of distress and inconvenience she sustained due to the landlord’s failures. In recognition of this, an award of further compensation is made in addition to that already offered by the landlord.
There was a failure to fully address the impact upon the resident in this case for the failings throughout the repair process. This leads to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s kitchen floor.
The resident has asked that the landlord take responsibility for the flooring in the future. However, the landlord stated it would not do that if she had her own flooring fitted. The landlord’s policy position on this matter, is reasonable, as is the expectation that the future maintenance of the flooring is the responsibility of the resident as is set out in the tenancy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

On 29 December 2022 the resident raised her complaint to the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 1 of its internal complaints process. It formally responded to the resident’s complaint on 14 March 2023, 52 working days after she had raised her complaint.
The landlord’s policy says that at stage 1 a complaint will be responded to within 10 working days. This was a significant delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and would have caused further distress to her. The landlord did not communicate the reason for the delay with the resident. This was an inappropriate action by the landlord and a breach of its complaint policy. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its stage 1 response and awarded £75 compensation to redress this.
The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 15 March 2023. The landlord’s policy says that at stage 2 a complaint will be responded to within 20 working days. The resident agreed an extension for the landlord to respond to her complaint by 27 April 2023. She chased a response on 3 May 2023 which was a further inconvenience for her.
On the same day the resident received the landlord’s stage 2 response. This was a delay to her complaint at stage 2 of around 15 days. This was a further breach by the landlord of its complaint policy, and this was inappropriate. The delay and inconvenience will have caused upset to the resident. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the delays in responding to her complaint. It increased the level of compensation offered from £75 to £150 for the complaint delays.
In summary, the landlord delayed in responding at both complaint stages to the resident. The landlord did not adhere to the agreed complaint extension date and that would have caused further inconvenience and upset to the resident. It has, however, apologised for the delay and distress caused to the resident.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right. It will also consider if it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case the landlord offered £150 compensation for complaint delays. The acknowledgement of the delays represents reasonable redress for the identified failings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to evidence it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaint. It “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s kitchen floor.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has provided reasonable redress for the service failures the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the report the landlord should apologise in writing to the resident for the failings outlined above.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should pay the resident £825. The landlord is free to deduct any amount of the £525 it identified as redress for its mishandling of the substantive complaint point.

Recommendations

The finding of reasonable redress in respect to the landlord’s complaint handling relies on it providing evidence it has made the compensation amount of £150.
It is recommended that within 4 weeks of this report the landlord carries out a review into the root cause of the service failures in this report and to identify improvements to its repairs process.
The landlord should respond to this Service within 4 weeks with evidence of compliance with the orders set out above and its response to the recommendations of this report.