South Liverpool Homes Limited (202300263)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300263

South Liverpool Homes Limited

29 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. The complaint is about;
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for replacement kitchen flooring.
   3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that contractors had damaged her carpet.

Background

2. The resident is a protected assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The resident complained about several issues in her property, but this investigation will only address the matters that the resident remains dissatisfied with.
3. On 12 January 2023, the resident complained to the landlord as she wished for her kitchen floor to be replaced. The resident said that the floor was ‘uncleanable’ and ‘had bacteria’. On 20 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and said that she also wished for her stairs and landing carpet to be replaced as it had been damaged by landlord staff when conducting work in the property.
4. The resident also raised complaints regarding the landlord removing bathroom tiles and not replacing them, as well as the condition of a radiator. The resident also complained that she wanted her extractor fans removing as they were an eyesore.
5. Following an inspection on 6 February 2023, the landlord issued a stage one response on 1 March 2023. It said that the kitchen floor was not deemed to need replacing. It acknowledged that given it was a safety, non-slip floor it could be difficult to clean. However, the landlord provided advice around regular cleaning.
6. With regards to the carpet, the landlord advised that it had seen photo evidence of operatives using plastic coverings to protect the carpet from damage. Therefore, the landlord would not replace the carpets, but it offered to have them deep cleaned.
7. The landlord agreed to replace the resident’s radiator. However, it advised it was unable to remove extractor fans but arranged to have them serviced.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint. The resident said she wanted both the kitchen floor and carpets replacing. The resident said that the carpets were new, and an operative had walked over them in muddy boots. She also said that the removal of the plastic coverings had caused damage to the carpet.
9. On 29 March 2023, the landlord issued its stage two response. The landlord maintained that the kitchen flooring was in reasonable condition and did not warrant replacement. The landlord said that given the plastic coverings were widely used and rarely presented any issues, it is unlikely that the removal had damaged the carpet. This was supported by an inspection by the landlord, where no damage was evident. However, the landlord reiterated its offer to have the carpets professionally cleaned.
10. The landlord also offered to retile the resident’s bathroom, as it acknowledged that it had not been properly communicated to the resident that they would be removed.
11. The resident raised a further complaint on 18 April 2023, regarding a member of staff entering her home while she was not present, after being let in by her teenage daughter. The landlord issued a stage one response on 2 May 2023, but the resident did not escalate her complaint any further. Therefore, the landlord has not issued a stage two response to the resident’s staff conduct complaint.
12. The resident remains dissatisfied because the issues have impacted her mental health, as well as her physical health. The resident reported that the damaged carpets caused her to suffer a back injury, for which she wishes to be compensated. As well as compensation, the resident wishes for the landlord to replace the kitchen flooring and her stairs carpet.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

13. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
14. In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. In this case, the resident made a complaint about staff conduct and although the landlord issued a stage one response, the resident did not escalate her complaint any further. Therefore, the resident has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process and so it does not satisfy the requirement for this Service to be able to investigate the complaint.
15. With that in mind, this report focuses on the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for replacement kitchen flooring and the resident’s reports of damaged carpets.

Scope

16. The resident raised several issues as part of her complaint. However, the landlord resolved a number of the resident’s complaints during its internal complaints process. Therefore, this investigation will focus solely on the complaints that the resident remains dissatisfied with.
17. The resident suggested that she suffered a back injury because of plastic covering that the landlord put down on her stairs carpet. It is beyond the expertise of the Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s reported injury. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for replacement kitchen flooring.

18. The basis of the resident’s request to have replacement kitchen flooring was due to the existing being ‘uncleanable’ and harbouring bacteria.
19. The landlord conducted an inspection of the flooring, which was appropriate. It determined that the flooring did not require replacing, and provided advice to the resident about regular cleaning which was reasonable.
20. Social landlords have limited budgets and are expected to allocate funding appropriately to provide the best service to all residents. The resident did not report that the flooring was defective, nor was it damaged. This was supported by the landlord’s inspection that determined that the flooring was in reasonable condition.
21. Given that the resident’s request for replacement flooring was based upon how easy it was to clean, it was appropriate that the landlord refused to replace the floor but provided advice about regular cleaning. Overall, the landlord’s explanations and rationale regarding not replacing the floor were reasonable.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that contractors had damaged her carpet.

22. Following the resident reporting damaged carpets, the landlord conducted an inspection. This was appropriate given the resident’s claims that landlord operatives had damaged them.
23. The landlord stated that it had seen evidence of protective plastic covering being placed on the carpet. This is appropriate action for operatives to take to prevent any damage to residents flooring. The resident stated that removing the covering had caused the carpet to become ‘lumpy’ and discoloured. Following an inspection, the landlord determined that the removal of the covering had not damaged the carpet. While the resident may not agree with that assessment, the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff following any inspections.
24. The resident further stated that a landlord had damaged the carpets after walking on it in muddy boots, which justified replacing them. The landlord stated that it was unlikely that the incident caused enough damage to warrant replacement. This Service is unable to confirm whether this was or was not the case.
25. In any event, the landlord offered a professional clean to restore the carpet. This was proportionate action and evidenced it was seeking a resolution for the resident. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took appropriate action in relation to investigating the concerns raised by the resident regarding her reports that operatives damaged her carpet.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of;
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for replacement kitchen flooring.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that contractors had damaged her carpet.