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

Places for People Group Limited (202305328)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305328

Places for People Group 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. This complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about delayed repairs to her home.
    2. The landlord’s handling of a leak and subsequent damage in 2015.
    3. The landlord’s decision about renewing the resident’s kitchen.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

The landlord’s handling of a leak and subsequent damage in 2015

  1. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which was not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
  2. The landlord has explained (in its first response to the resident’s complaint in 2023) that the resident told it she experienced repair delays to her bathroom following a leak in 2015. She said that her Occupational Therapist became involved and arranged for the bathroom to be repaired by an external company. The resident told the landlord that she was seeking compensation for the inconvenience and frustration caused by its handling of that leak. The landlord explained it could not find details of the leak, due to the age of the issue, but acknowledged and regretted the inconvenience caused.
  3. With the passage of time the opportunity to resolve a problem or issue and provide meaningful and proportionate remedies is diminished. This can sometimes be because evidence naturally becomes harder to locate, memories fade, and staff move or leave. Importantly, making a complaint as soon as possible after becoming aware of an issue usually means it can be resolved quickly, and minimise or eliminate any impact on the complainant. In this case the amount of time between the leak in 2015 and the complaint in 2023 means that a robust investigation of the matter is not possible. Because of that, in line with paragraph 42(c), this issue is not considered in this investigation.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident wrote to the landlord in May 2023 reporting several repair issues in her home. The landlord contacted her, and then raised her concerns as a complaint. It wrote to her setting out its understanding of her repair issues. These included her wanting a new kitchen due to the age and condition of her present one, holes and gaps in walls and skirting, and delays removing or repairing an old fuse box.
  3. The landlord sent its complaint response at the end of May 2023. It acknowledged the resident’s concern that a number of repairs had been attended by the wrong type of operative. It explained why some repair jobs had not proceeded, or had not resolved the issue, and agreed that the work on the fuse box had not been resolved to an appropriate standard. The landlord explained that the resident’s kitchen had been assessed in 2021 and scheduled for renewal in 2026 at the earliest. It provided appointment dates for some of the outstanding repair work, said it would make arrangements for the others, and confirmed the date it would attend to inspect and repair the kitchen doors and cupboards the resident had reported. The landlord apologised for not getting all of the repairs resolved as it had hoped, and offered the resident £500 compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord after receiving its complaint response. She explained she was dissatisfied with its explanation about the kitchen, and with the amount of compensation. She asked it to pay £1000 and commit to resolving the outstanding repairs. In June 2023 she emailed the landlord saying she had been told the kitchen renewal had been approved, and was waiting for her boiler to be replaced, fixes to a light and a railing, and decoration to the ceilings. The landlord acknowledged her email on 9 June. It said its repair team would contact her to arrange an inspection of the boilers, repair the light and railing, and paint the ceilings. It explained it had no record of advising her it had changed its mind about renewing the kitchen, but confirmed it would be visiting to repair the cupboards and drawers.
  5. An internal note of a phone call from the resident on 22 June 2023 explains that she asked for her complaint to be escalated. The note states the resident “advised that due to the painting being scheduled, she has moved all her furniture and is struggling to use her medical equipment downstairs now. She has contacted the HOS and told me that the HOS have advised her that we should now honour the new kitchen replacement due to the length of time she has been waiting for her repairs to be resolved.”
  6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint promptly. It explained its understanding of the resident’s concerns to be about the kitchen condition, incomplete painting and decorating, and missed appointments. It noted the resident had said the condition of the property overall was affecting her and her family’s health, and that she was currently spending parts of the day at a neighbour’s home because of it.
  7. The landlord sent its final complaint response in July 2023. It explained in detail why it had not agreed to renew the kitchen at that stage, but would resolve interim repairs for it. It said the resident had declined repairs when its operative attended, because she was expecting the kitchen to soon be replaced. It confirmed a new appointment for the repairs had been arranged. The landlord acknowledged remedial work to parts of the resident’s home had not yet been completed. It apologised for the delay and its poor communication. It said it had arranged for its contractors to schedule a new appointment with the resident, and apologised for the inconvenience this had caused her, given that she had packed a lot of her belongings in boxes and was living in that situation. It also apologised for several other poor repair experiences the resident had experienced in the past, including with the fuse box. The landlord explained that it had already offered £500 compensation in its original complaint response, an additional £350 towards “dog care”. It offered a further £500 in light of the continued delays.
  8. The landlord concluded by addressing a further issue the resident had raised about a boiler replacement, during which a cupboard handle had been damaged and airing cupboard shelves removed. It said it would arrange the handle repair, but that the shelves could not be replaced due to the size of the boiler.
  9. In her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident explained that the door handle had not yet been repaired, and the remedial decorating remained outstanding. She also complained about the landlord’s handling of the 2015 leak, and raised new issues which had occurred since her complaint to the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

  1. In her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident raised a number of repair issues which had arisen since the landlord issued its final complaint response. These included damage to her carpets by painters, issues with smoke alarms, and a leak from the new boiler. As these issues arose after the complaints being considered here, they cannot be considered in this investigation. If she has not done so already, the resident should raise new complaints with the landlord about these new issues. Only after the landlord has considered the new issues and investigated the resident’s concerns can she return to this Service, and ask us to investigate the landlord’s handling of them.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about delayed repairs to her home

  1. In response to the resident’s complaint the landlord acknowledged that there had been a range of repair issues which had not been resolved in good time, or had been attended to and completed but not to an appropriate standard (such as the fuse box). Some of these repair issues appear to have been ongoing or outstanding for an unreasonable period of time. The repair records show the resident reporting the incomplete repair to the fuse box in July 2020, and references to issues with cracks in the property from mid-2022. Nonetheless, the evidence also gives no indication that these particular issues would reasonably be expected to have significantly impacted on day to day living, and were of a more corrective or decorative nature. For example, the records show the fuse box had already been temporarily repaired, and the resident was chasing a permanent solution rather than leave it “taped up”. The landlord referred to work needed for the walls and ceilings as decorative, and noted that the resident had arranged for some of them to be filled in herself. That does not diminish the fact that the length of time these issues remained unresolved was extensive, and the resident’s frustration is wholly understandable.
  2. Several of the repair and maintenance jobs promised in the landlord’s first complaint response were not completed as it said it would, requiring the resident to escalate her complaint. That was a further service failure adding to the delay completing the work. In its final complaint response the landlord committed to new targets to resolve the decoration works throughout the property, and to remedy an issue caused when the boiler had been replaced. The landlord has confirmed that these remaining issues were resolved before the end of 2023, although the resident has explained that some of these repairs  led to further problems (these are addressed in the Investigation Scope section above).
  3. Given the delays involved with several of the repair issues raised by the resident, and further delays following its promises in its first complaint response, it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledge and apologise for its poor service, as it did in both of its complaint responses. It also offered the resident £500 compensation initially. In the circumstances of both the nature of the repairs and the length of delay, that compensation might have been considered reasonable if the landlord had then been able to complete the necessary work in good time.
  4. As it happened, it was not able to do so, leading to the resident’s escalated complaint. The landlord apologised again for its further delays, and offered an additional £500 compensation plus £350 for what it described as “a contribution towards dog care to facilitate works.” The landlord then completed the works it had promised to do in its final complaint response. The landlord’s overall compensation of £1350 was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for complaints where failings have occurred over a long period, requiring chasing by the tenant, but where no permanent or long term impact has occurred. Accordingly, while the delays completing the relevant repair issues was lengthy, the landlord took appropriate steps to acknowledge and rectify its poor service.

The landlord’s decision about renewing the resident’s kitchen

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it is responsible for repairs to kitchen fitted cupboards and units, from wear and tear. The tenancy agreement says the same.
  2. Landlords are not generally obliged to make improvements to a property. Nonetheless, the usual social sector approach for kitchens and bathrooms is for a landlord to undertake cyclical renewals or replacements of bathrooms and kitchens, as part of a wider effort to keep its properties habitable and in an appropriate condition. The cyclical period can usually be up to 30 years, but is dependent on the specific condition and usability of each individual property. The decision about when to plan a kitchen or bathroom replacement or renewal is the landlord’s to make. Nothing in the resident’s tenancy agreement or other information provided for this investigation suggests otherwise in this particular case.
  3. The resident told the landlord she believed her kitchen was in a poor state of repair and effectively unusable. In response the landlord explained in detail how it scheduled its major works programmes in order to ensure consistency and fairness, but confirmed it would attend and resolve any repair issues that arose in the kitchen in the interim. It referred to a survey done in 2021 which had identified a likely replacement date of 2026. A copy of the survey has not been provided for this investigation. Nonetheless, the landlord’s repair records show it attending to repair issues in the kitchen in 2022 and 2023, supporting its explanation that while it did not believe the kitchen was due for renewal currently, it understood its obligation to maintain it in a reasonable state of repair.
  4. The resident and landlord have different views on the state of the kitchen, and her frustration with the landlord’s decision is understandable. This Service’s role is not to substitute the Ombudsman’s own decision on such a question. Rather, it is to consider the reasonableness of the landlord’s decision based on the relevant policies and procedures, and the facts and circumstances. In this case, the landlord clearly explained its position and decision, which was in line with the tenancy agreement, its repairs policy, and general practice. Nothing has been seen in this investigation suggesting its decision was unsound or unreasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In line with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s complaint about delayed repairs to her home.
  2. In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its decision about renewing the resident’s kitchen.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the full scale of the poor repair service experienced by the resident. The level of compensation it subsequently offered was proportionate to the scale and impact of its delays, and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  2. The landlord clearly explained its decision about the resident’s kitchen renewal. It’s explanations were consistent, and reflected basic practice and its repair policy.