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

Somerset Council (202322619)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322619

Somerset Council

21 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handing of a kitchen installation.

Background

  1. The resident has a sole secure tenancy that started on 2 June 2008. The property is described as a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. The property is occupied by the resident, her husband and their children.
  2. The vulnerabilities within the resident’s household are as follows: the resident’s husband has a learning disability, a child has a disability and another child is aged under 5 years old. The landlord has told this Service that a vulnerability marker has been added to the resident’s account.
  3. The landlord started planned works to replace the resident’s kitchen on 13 March 2023. The landlord’s records show that the works were completed on 6 April 2023 with cooking facilities restored.
  4. The same day, 6 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to raise her dissatisfaction with the installation. The resident advised that the tiling was incomplete. In addition, the contractor had indicated that it would remain incomplete and said she was receiving “a free kitchen.” Her husband had learning difficulties, he had felt unable to deal with the situation and the resident requested that the workman did not return to the property. In response, the landlord advised the resident to send in pictures of the kitchen and to make a complaint.
  5. The following day, the resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours service to report that its contractor had cut through a gas pipe. The national gas emergency service was in attendance, she had been put at risk and she had a disabled child in the property. The resident was advised that as the gas supply had been capped, the property was safe. The landlord’s out of hours service tried on 2 separate occasions to contact its contractors but there was no answer. The gas manager advised that the reconnection of the gas supply had to be dealt with during operational hours. The resident was advised to call the landlord on 11 April 2023 and she could make a complaint.
  6. On 11 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and said:
    1. A member of the contractor’s staff had informed her that he had served only 50% of a 15-year prison sentence. This made her feel uncomfortable.
    2. The workmanship to the kitchen was poor. She described:

a.     Uneven plaster to the walls and visible plaster near the electrical sockets.

b.     Difficulty with reaching the kitchen wall units. She advised that she had to use a ladder to get access.

c.      A wall kitchen unit door had been hung on the incorrect side.

d.     Flooring was incorrectly laid and not level.

e.     The worktop near the cooker was cracked, tiles were not grouted and some tiles were cracked.

f.        The national gas emergency service had visited her property. This resulted in the resident and her neighbour having to leave the property for an hour.

  1. That day, a gas engineer attended and reconnected the resident’s gas supply.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 11 May 2023 about the kitchen installation. She said that for 9 weeks she had experienced gas leaks, poor workmanship and electrical faults. Also, the contractors were incompetent and nobody wanted to take responsibility for the situation. The resident requested compensation and reminded the landlord of its property condition obligations.
  3. The landlord provided its Stage 1 complaint response on 20 June 2023. It stated that it was responsible for the health, safety and welfare of tenants. It found the following:
    1. Gas leak

a.     The resident reported a gas leak on 11 April 2023 and the national gas emergency services attended. The incoming gas pipe was capped and made safe.

b.     Its contractor attended, investigated and undertook a risk assessment. Its contractor has agreed to send the resident written confirmation of its findings.

  1. Workmanship

a.     It agreed that the kitchen installation had not been completed to a satisfactory standard.

b.     Work to the plastering, kitchen cabinets, tiles and floor covering were to be rectified by 20 June 2023.

c.      The contractor had apologised for the time taken to install the kitchen and explained that this was due to its sub-contractor. It had since terminated the sub-contractor contract.

d.     A post-completion inspection would take place on 22 June 2023 to ensure the works met the building regulations.

  1. Conclusion

a.     The complaint was upheld and it agreed that the resident had experienced an unacceptable delay.

b.     It acknowledged that the service delivered to the resident fell below its standards and the resident was left disappointed.

c.      It provided a claim form for the damage to the resident’s belongings and apologised to her.

  1. On 20 July 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure. The resident said:
    1. The property was inspected on 22 June 2023. The surveyor who attended was unhappy with the kitchen finish. However, she had not received his inspection report so was unable to provide evidence of his opinion.
    2. She remained unhappy with the workmanship of the kitchen installation.
    3. She had been treated in a condescending manner by the landlord and its contractor.
    4. She provided a letter from the national gas emergency service confirming their attendance and the disconnection of the gas supply.
    5. She had provided pictures of the kitchen units and the boiler placed outside the property by the contractor.
  2. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 18 September 2023. It apologised for its delay in supplying its complaint response and acknowledged information provided by the resident on 24 August 2023. The landlord said:
    1. It acknowledged that there were service failures with the kitchen finish as well as the coordination of the defects works which its contractor could have prevented.
    2. It offered £255.92 to reimburse the resident for the costs incurred for takeaways meals between March and April 2023.
    3. Its contractor attended to rectify the defects reported between 6 April 2023 and 16 August 2023. This was to: install a base unit end panel, paint the skirting behind the cooker, replace 1 tile under the window cill, grout and decorate the window trim and the fridge space.
    4. It inspected the kitchen on 18 August 2023 and was satisfied that the works to remedy the defects had been completed to a satisfactory standard.
    5. An overall compensation award was made for £355.92. This was broken down as £255.92 for the reimbursement for meals and £100 for inconvenience and time and trouble experienced by the resident.
    6. The complaint was upheld. The landlord apologised for the service failures and for not meeting the resident’s expectations. It said it had put measures in place to prevent the situation reoccurring with future capital works.
  3. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service. She expressed her disappointment with the time taken to install the kitchen and the poor workmanship, including the gas leak that occurred. The resident also expressed her unhappiness with the compensation award.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident made a complaint on 14 July 2023 regarding a loss of heating and hot water. The landlord provided its Stage 1 complaint response on 24 July 2023. There is no evidence that the resident escalated that complaint to the final stage of its complaint procedure or to this Service. As the complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s formal complaint process, it will not be considered in this investigation. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are “made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure”.
  2. The resident has stated that during the kitchen installation she experienced an electrical shock. Though this Service is an informal alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action 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 better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Landlord’s policies

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy sets out a contractor code of conduct that includes the following:
    1. Providing a safe working environment and confirming with the resident the work to be carried out.
    2. The provision of cooking facilities.
    3. Carrying out work to a good standard and completing work to agreed timescales.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handing of the kitchen installation to the property.

  1. The landlord agreed to replace the resident’s kitchen in March 2023. The works were scheduled to be completed within 10 working days. It is not disputed that the kitchen installation was not completed until August 2023. This represented an unacceptable delay which was acknowledged by the landlord.
  2. The landlord has also acknowledged that, during the installation works, the resident did not have adequate cooking facilities. The landlord assessed that cooking facilities were unavailable between 13 March 2023 and 6 April 2023. It was reasonable that the landlord assessed the resident’s request and determined that a reimbursement for takeaway meals was necessary.
  3. This Service’s Spotlight Report on Repairs (March 2019) sets out that landlords remain responsible for repairs where using contractors to deliver its services. The gas supply to the resident’s property was capped by the national emergency gas service on 7 April 2023 following a gas leak report. The resident notified the landlord that day and was informed that the gas supply could not be reconnected until the next working day – 11 April 2023. There were vulnerable household members and there is no evidence that, during the conversation with the resident, the landlord’s out of hours service checked this with her. This is unreasonable as it had a responsibility to ensure that the resident had adequate facilities until the gas supply was restored.
  4. The resident felt that the landlord did not take her concerns seriously about the disconnection of the gas supply and the impact to her family. Recognising the impact of the unavailability of a gas supply on the resident would have allowed her to feel ‘heard.’ The landlord later established that the escape of gas was due to its contractor cutting though a gas pipe embedded in the wall. The gas supply was restored on 11 April 2023. The gas safety certificate issued by the gas contractor showed that a carbon monoxide monitor was not present in the property. This is unreasonable as the landlord has a legal duty to ensure that the resident has a working carbon monoxide alarm.
  5. Landlords should ensure that when repairs take place, they are done to the appropriate standard and completed right first time where possible. This is vital to building trust between residents and landlords. The landlord has recognised that the workmanship to the kitchen finish was below its standards. Inspections were carried out in June 2023 and August 2023 by its surveyors. The landlord was unable to provide the resident or this Service with the outcome of those inspections. The landlord’s records do not show what its surveyor found nor his opinion on the quality of the kitchen installation. This is unreasonable as the landlord should have systems in place to evidence the results of inspections even where staff later leave its employment or contracts end.
  6. The landlord is responsible for ensuring that its contractor acted in line with the terms of its repairs policy and in line with any specific contractual arrangements. The resident raised concerns regarding remarks made by an operative employed by a sub–contractor about his time in prison and the resident’s receipt of a kitchen installation. In response, the resident was advised that if she remained uncomfortable with the operative being in attendance at her property, she could refuse him access.
  7. The landlord’s contractor advised that they had terminated the contract with their sub-contractor. The reasons for its decisions are not known so it is unclear whether this was related to the resident’s concerns albeit the termination of the contract would naturally mean that other residents would not have the same experience as that which the resident reported. Similarly, the landlord has told us that it has ended its contract with the contractor responsible for the kitchen replacement which indicates it learned lessons from the failings in this case, or others. Nevertheless, it is unreasonable that there is no evidence that the landlord took steps to investigate the allegations with its contractor or sought to reassure the resident that it would consider her specific reports.
  8. The reported defects to the kitchen were completed on 16 August 2023. The accepted that the overall time taken to complete the kitchen installation was unacceptable. The landlord made a compensation award of £100 for the inconvenience and time and trouble experienced by the resident. The compensation award was insufficient as it did not go far enough to recognise the impact to the resident and her family over an extended period of time, particularly given the vulnerabilities in the household likely worsened the impact. The compensation award was not within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend where there have been failings that had a significant impact on a resident and is therefore not considered proportionate.
  9. The landlord informed this Service on 25 June 2024 that it considered making an improved compensation offer to £600, made up of a further £300 broken down as: recognition of the heating loss that occurred during the weekend, worry and safety concerns regarding the suspected gas leak and recognition that it failed to address some of the resident’s concerns. The landlord did not inform the resident of the improved compensation offer.
  10. Although the landlord eventually offered compensation within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend for occasions where a failure has adversely impacted a resident, this was not achieved through the complaints process. It took the landlord over 13 months to appropriately review its offer of redress which meant that it missed the opportunity to do so within the complaints process and without the Ombudsman’s involvement.
  11. In summary, where a resident raises concern to the landlord about the actions of a contractor, it is expected to investigate their concerns and monitor any ongoing actions. While the delays in this case were largely the result of its contractor’s actions, the landlord had overall responsibility for ensuring the kitchen was properly installed in a timely fashion. Therefore, any delay as a result of its contractors actions were the landlord’s responsibility to put right and the compensation award through the complaints process was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a kitchen installation.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident an additional £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its failings in the handling of the kitchen installation (on top of the £355.92 it awarded in its complaints response).
    3. If it has not already done so, arrange a mutually convenient appointment for the installation of a carbon monoxide monitor to the kitchen.
  2. The landlord is to reply to this Service to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.