Platform Housing Group Limited (202226549)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226549

Platform Housing Group Limited

17 June 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. Response to the resident’s reports of disrepair to the kitchen sink, kitchen cupboards and plastering in the living room walls.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy. The property is a five-bedroom house.
The resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions between February 2021 and July 2021 stating that the kitchen sink was “falling apart”. She also informed the landlord that the kitchen cupboards were damaged and not closing properly. The landlord raised a job on 21 June 2021 and attended on 23 July 2021. The landlord confirmed it would replace the resident’s kitchen sink.
The resident made a formal complaint on 13 January 2022. In summary, she complained about the outstanding repairs to the kitchen sink and cupboard, badly plastered walls in the living room and delays in giving her “direction” on how to purchase part-shared ownership.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 17 January 2022 and stated that it would issue a stage 1 response by 31 January 2022. It contacted her on 31 January 2022, and informed her there would be a delay in providing a stage one response. It contacted her again on 11 February 2022, and informed her that it still had outstanding enquires regarding her kitchen and living room walls so it required additional time to provide a response. It requested for an extension of 10 workings days. It stated that it would issue a response by 28 February 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 April 2022. In summary, it stated as follows:
1. That its operative attended on 23 July 2021 to examine the work required. The operative advised that due to backlogs of work, low resource, diary availability and influx of new/emergency repairs, it would take a long time for the landlord’s repairs team to reschedule the required work. The operative believed that it would be best to pass the work to a third-party contractor to complete.
2. Its records showed that the work was initially passed to a contractor on 12 August 2021. As part of its investigation into the resident’s complaint, it requested for the replacement of the kitchen sink to be scheduled as a matter of urgency and its contractors confirmed that it booked the sink replacement for 10 February 2022.
3. It apologised and acknowledged that at the time of receiving the resident’s complaint the work had still not been completed. It stated that it had followed up the sink replacement with its contractor again and requested that they rescheduled the work. Although it had not yet received confirmation of when the work will be completed, it assured the resident that it would continue to monitor the replacement and keep her updated.
4. Regarding the resident’s complaint about the kitchen cupboards and the living room walls. It apologised for the delay in arranging a visit by its surveyor. It confirmed that a surveyor attended the property on 7 March 2022 to discuss the resident’s concerns. The surveyor advised that he found the kitchen to be in good condition and explained that he would not be authorising a kitchen replacement.
5. The surveyor advised that he found the plasterwork to be in good condition generally and he did not believe that the room needed to be replastered. He also advised that he could arrange to fill and sand the living room walls, but the resident would need to remove the furniture from the room, for this to be carried out. The landlord asked the resident to inform it if this was something she would like it to arrange with its repairs team.
6. It partially upheld the complaint stating that the resident had experienced delays in the repair to her kitchen sink being completed and there was a lack of communication around the repairs.
7. It offered £150 compensation under its compensation category of failure of staff to take reasonable care.
The resident escalated her complaint on 2 May 2022, in summary she stated as follows:
1. That the works to the kitchen sink had been outstanding for over a year. The hot water coming from the sink tap was burning her hands. The surface of the kitchen sink was not level and was causing water to leak into the cupboards.
2. She was upset about the length of time she had been waiting for the landlord to complete repairs to the kitchen units. The kitchen units were damaged and did not match.
3. That she had a broken smoke alarm.
4. She identified several issues with the plastering in the living room and asked for the landlord to replaster the wall.
5. She did not accept the landlord’s compensation offer of £150. She wanted the landlord to install a new kitchen and stated that she was prepared to accept £2,500 to replace the kitchen. She also stated that she was not seeking to be paid directly but she had obtained a quote from a local reputable kitchen retailer.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 6 May 2022 and issued its stage 2 response on 18 July 2022. In summary, it stated as follows:
1. It confirmed that its surveyor attended the resident’s property on 7 March 2022. It agreed with the surveyor’s assessment that the kitchen and living room were in good condition and the kitchen did not require replacement.
2. However, in recognition of the time it had taken to resolve the issue with the kitchen sink and the length of time she had been progressing her concerns regarding her kitchen it agreed that it would replace the kitchen. It stated it would add her kitchen to the kitchen replacement programme for 2022 and works would commence before 31 March 2023.
3. It also stated that in recognition of the resident’s concerns over the issues with the plastering in the living room wall, it would make good the “joint tapes” and “re-skim” in the living room. It advised that the works would cause disruption and it could not provide her with a timescale due to current repairs backlog.
4. It stated that it would raise jobs to repair issues that were not related to the resident’s complaint such as the resident’s alarm cover, radiators in the living room and radiators in the downstairs WC.
5. It stated that it would replace the kitchen flooring when it replaced the kitchen.
6. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered £200 for the time taken to review the resident’s complaint.
The resident contacted this Service on 31 January 2023, informing us that she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response and she had made a new complaint in relation to delays in completing her kitchen renewal amongst other things.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident stated that she has experienced issues with her kitchen sink and living room walls since March 2019. Under Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period usually 6 months. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from 21 June 2021 when the resident made the initial complaint to 18 July 2022 when the landlord issued its stage 2 response.
The resident informed this Service that she has made a new complaint regarding delays in completing her kitchen renewal, increased rent, damp and mould in her property and poor communication. The resident is yet to receive a final response to these complaints.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which ‘are made prior to having exhausted a member’s (landlord’s) complaints procedure. In this instance, the resident would need to have received a final response from the landlord before this Service can investigate her complaints. The resident may be able to bring the new complaints to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once the issues have been through the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disrepair to the kitchen sink, kitchen cupboards and plastering in the living room walls.

As the resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, it is the landlord’s legal responsibility to repair most issues that arise in the resident’s home. The relevant legislation states that repairs should be completed within a “reasonable” timeframe. Best practice in the social housing sector considers a “reasonable” timeframe to complete non-complex routine repairs to be approximately one month. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy does not give a fixed timeframe for completing its responsive repairs but says it will offer a “mutually convenient appointment at first point of contact where possible”.
When a resident makes a repair request, this Service would expect the landlord to attend within a reasonable timeframe, usually 4 weeks for routine repairs. This Service would expect the landlord to keep clear records of repair appointments and outcomes from such visit. This Service would also expect the landlord to inform the resident of scheduled visits and communicate the outcome of these visits and any subsequent plans to remedy the repair.
The landlord raised a repair job to inspect the resident’s kitchen sink on 21 June 2021 and a plumber attended on 23 July 2021. This was approximately 1 month and 2 days from when the repair was raised. This time frame was reasonable and only 2 days outside this Service’s expectations regarding responding to repair requests.
The landlord confirmed during this visit that it would replace the resident’s kitchen sink. However, it did not communicate to the resident when the replacement would be completed neither did it raise a job to replace the kitchen sink. This was unreasonable and would have understandably caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident and created uncertainty regarding when the sink replacement would be completed.
The resident informed the landlord again in her stage 1 complaint of 13 January 2022, that she was waiting for outstanding repairs to her kitchen sink. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 response of 5 April 2022, that the sink had not been replaced. At the time of the landlord’s stage 1 response there had been a delay of 9 months and 16 days from when the landlord raised the job to inspect the resident’s sink on 21 June 2021.
The landlord did not provide any explanation for this unreasonably long delay or provide any confirmation to the resident on when the job to replace the sink might be completed. This was a failing by landlord, and it understandably would have caused additional unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord further confirmed in its final response of 18 July 2022, that the kitchen sink had still not been replaced. At the time of its stage 2 response, there was a delay of 1 year, 28 days in completing repairs to the kitchen sink.
The resident reported in her escalation request that the water from the kitchen sink was hot and burning her hands. There is no evidence to show that the landlord inspected the temperature of the water or made any attempts to resolve this issue. The landlord should have addressed this by attending the property and assessing the risk of the water being too hot. This would have been in line with its obligations under the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System which states that “ideally, hot water should be no more than 60˚C in kitchens, 41˚C for hand basins and 46˚C for baths”. The landlord not addressing this issue was a failure and appeared dismissive to the resident’s concerns.
The resident complained about the issues with her kitchen cupboard and the plastering in her living room wall in her stage 1 complaint of 13 January 2022. It was not until 7 March 2022, that the landlord’s surveyor attended to inspect the kitchen cupboards and the living room walls. This was 23 days outside the 4 weeks’ timeframe expected for the completion of routine repairs. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show the landlord communicated with the resident regarding her concerns around the kitchen cupboards or living room walls until its surveyor attended on 7 March 2022.
This Service would have expected the landlord to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe of 4 weeks and to keep the resident updated regarding her repair requests. This delay and lack of communication was not reasonable and understandably would have caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident.
In this case, in relation to the kitchen cupboards and living room walls, the landlord’s surveyor concluded that the kitchen and living room wall were in satisfactory condition and as such there was no intention to have the kitchen renewed or the living room replastered. A landlord would be entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors, and accordingly its decision not to complete repairs to the kitchen cupboards or living room wall was reasonable in the circumstances.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation in its stage 1 response. Also, in its stage 2 response it decided to renew the resident’s kitchen and complete some repairs to her living room wall. Although these actions were reasonable, it was not sufficient redress.
This Service finds there was maladministration in how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of disrepair to the kitchen sink, kitchen cupboards and plastering in the living room walls for the following reasons:
1. There were significant delays of 1 year and 28 days in responding to the resident’s request for the renewal of the kitchen sink.
2. It did not consider the detriment caused to the resident by not having access to a suitable kitchen sink during this long period of time.
3. It did not consider her concerns regarding the temperature of the water from the kitchen sink.
4. There was a delay of over 3 weeks in responding to the resident’s concerns regarding the kitchen cupboards and living room wall.
5. There was poor communication with the resident.
An order has been made below that the landlord should pay an additional £250 compensation to the resident for the failures identified in its handling of the repairs. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where a landlord has acknowledged some failings and made an offer to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the Ombudsman’s findings.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints procedure states that the landlord will respond to complaints at stage 1 of the procedure within 10 working days of receiving it. It aims to respond to complaints at stage 2 of the procedure within 20 working days. Where complaints are complex and the landlord requires more time to adequately respond, the policy states that it will discuss this with the resident and keep in regular contact thereafter.
The resident made her formal complaint on 13 January 2022, the landlord acknowledged her complaint and said it would issue its formal response on 31 January 2022. It then contacted her on 31 January 2022 to inform her that there would be a delay in providing a response. It requested for an extension until 28 February 2022. The landlord’s action of informing the resident that it could not provide a response within its published timeframe and requesting for an extension was reasonable and in line with its policy.
However, the landlord did not provide its response until 5 April 2022, there is no evidence of any communication between the landlord and the resident from when it requested an extension on 11 February 2022 until its stage 1 response of 5 April 2022. The landlord’s response was 1 month, 8 days outside of its extended target of 28 February 2022 and 2 months, 23 days from when the resident made her initial complaint.
This Service would have expected the landlord to comply with its extended target date of 28 February 2022. Also, it should have informed the resident of the additional delay in responding to her complaint. This delay in providing a complaint response within its extended target date and not communicating with the resident regarding this was a failure and would understandably have caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
Neither the landlord’s stage 1 nor its stage 2 response addressed the resident’s concerns regarding delays in giving her direction on how she could purchase part- shared ownership of the property. She raised this issue as part of her stage 1 complaint on 13 January 2022 and in a subsequent correspondence to the landlord on 23 January 2022.
Paragraph 6.7 of this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. The landlord’s failure to do so would have led the resident to believe her concerns had been overlooked. Thereby causing her unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
The resident escalated her complaint on 2 May 2022, and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 July 2022. This response was 77 days from when she made her escalation request. The landlord’s policy states stage 2 complaints should be responded to within 20 working days. This response was out of time by 57 days. As stated previously, this Service would have expected the landlord to respond within its established timeframe and communicate with the resident regarding delays in proving a response.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord identified new issues that were not related to the resident’s complaint like issues with the resident’s alarm cover, radiators in the living room, radiators in the downstairs WC and her kitchen flooring. It stated it would raise jobs to repair these issues. The landlord’s action regarding raising jobs for the new issues unrelated to the complaint was reasonable and in line with this Service complaint handling code.
Although the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that there had been delays in responding to the complaint at stage 2 and offered £200 as compensation for this delay. This does not amount to reasonable redress as it did not respond within its timeframe at stage 1 or stage 2 and it did not provide any explanation for these delays nor did it provide any update to the resident regarding these delays.
Furthermore, the landlord did not explain the steps it would take to prevent such delays occurring in the future, failing to demonstrate that it had taken adequate points of learning from the complaint. Also, it did not respond to all elements of the resident’s complaint. For these reasons, this Service finds there was maladministration with regards to the landlord’s complaint handling. An order has been made below for compensation in line with this Service remedies guidance.
An order has been made below that the landlord should pay an additional £100 compensation to the resident for the failures identified in its complaint handling. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where a landlord has acknowledged some failings and made an offer to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the Ombudsman’s findings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disrepair to the kitchen sink, kitchen cupboards and plastering in the living room walls.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
2. Provide the resident with information on how she can purchase part-shared ownership of the property.
3. Pay the resident total compensation of £700. This amount must be paid direct to the resident and not offset against her rent account. This £700 compensation is comprised as follows:
  1. £150 previously offered by the landlord in its stage 1 complaint response and an additional £250 for failures identified in its handling of the resident’s repairs in relation to the kitchen sink, kitchen cupboards and living room wall.
  2. £200 previously offered by the landlord in its stage 2 complaint response and an additional £100 for failures in its complaint handling.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.