Stonewater Limited (202126957)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126957

Stonewater Limited

29 September 2023 (amended at review)

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:
  1. Subject Access Request (SAR);
  2. concerns about her service charge;
  3. concerns about its communications with her GP;
2. response to the resident’s reports about various repair issues in her kitchen, including the:
  1. units
  2. extractor fan;
  3. paint;
  4. window;
3. complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

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.
Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme notes as follows:

42. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

k) fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has jurisdiction over investigations for complaints relating to data protection obligations.
It is not disputed that, as part of her ongoing disputes with the landlord, the resident made a SAR. The resident has advised this service that the landlord has yet to fully respond to her SAR.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s SAR is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident may be able to refer this complaint to the ICO.
Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme notes as follows:

42. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

f) concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.

The resident is required to pay a service charge. An element of this service charge is for cleaning communal areas. The resident has complained about having to pay the service charge for periods when communal cleaning did not occur.
The landlord has since issued proceedings relating to rent arrears. As part of these proceedings, the resident has raised her concerns about the service charge for the court to consider. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that the court case is ongoing. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate or comment on the possible outcomes of the court proceedings.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme, the complaint about the resident’s service charge is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme notes as follows:

42. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

g) concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure.

The resident has raised concerns that a communication from the landlord to her GP contained incorrect information. The resident has also expressed concerns that the content of the letter was defamatory.
As with above, the ICO may be able to investigate complaints relating to the misuse of personal data. Additionally, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding of legal defamation, which is more appropriate for the courts.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s communications with the resident’s GP is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident has the option to seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue this concern.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property since 2008. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge an initial complaint within two working days and provide a stage one response within 10 working days. Stage two responses will be provided within 10 days of an escalation. If it needs to extend these timeframes, it will keep the complainant informed.
The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. Repairs such as kitchen unit repairs are responded to ‘by appointment’, rather than as emergency repairs. The policy does not provide specific timeframes for this type of repair.

Summary of events

In or around March 2021, the landlord agreed to carry out works in the resident’s kitchen. These works included repairing the kitchen units and adding a unit behind her dishwasher.
Works were initially arranged for 14 June 2021. However, on that date, at 4p.m., the works were cancelled due to other works running over time. The works were subsequently rearranged for 17 June 2021.
The resident reported her dissatisfaction with this delay and that she had rearranged the contents of her kitchen in preparation for the works. This had left the kitchen difficult to use. She therefore requested compensation for the delay. On 17 June 2021, the landlord acknowledged this as a formal complaint.
Following works on 17 June 2021, the resident reported that the works to the kitchen units were left incomplete and the redecoration works were substandard. Additionally, the skirting boards and other areas were left unpainted. She also expressed concern about the type of paint used. It is not evident that the landlord responded, which led the resident to chase an update on four occasions throughout June and July 2021.
The landlord replied on 21 July 2021. It apologised for the delay. It advised that the works to the units were interim repairs, as they were still waiting on an order for new units. The landlord noted that its operatives had attempted to attend that day but that the resident had declined access. The operatives advised that this was due to the resident wanting works carried out on her kitchen window, about which they were unaware. The landlord therefore rebooked the kitchen works for 28 July 2021 and queried what works the resident had been expecting to her windows.
On 27 July 2021, the resident advised that she had previously had her windows inspected in March 2020 and that the landlord’s surveyor had agreed to carry out works to the windows. These works had been cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic; however, now that the landlord had been made aware, she expected them to reopen this work order.
On 28 July 2021, the landlord noted its operatives had attended the property, but there had been no answer at the door. The resident disputed this, as she had been home all day. She also noted she had not received any telephone calls during the attempt to gain access. She further requested an update on works to the windows.
It is evident that on or around 3 August 2021, the landlord attended and replaced the resident’s kitchen extractor fan. Around this time, there was ongoing discussion between the parties to ensure the paint that would be used for the kitchen was suitable.
On 4 August 2021, the landlord informed the resident that its records indicated works had been agreed to regarding the living room windows in 2020, but it was unclear what the issue was with the kitchen windows. It therefore requested further information about what issues the resident was experiencing. It also indicated the works on 28 July 2021 had been cancelled due to the units still not being available, but did not comment on the previous issue of no access.
Throughout her communications with the landlord, the resident referred to her concerns about the ongoing issue with the kitchen as a “health and safety” issue. On 19 August 2021, the landlord requested more information about why she considered this a health and safety issue. It also advised that it required an Occupational Therapist’s (OT) report in order to understand what was required for the windows. It signposted her to her GP to arrange this. Finally, it advised that the works had been rescheduled for 8 September 2021.
On 7 September 2021, the landlord’s internal communications note that its operatives attempted to attend the property, but there was no access.
On 20 September 2021, the resident noted that a new kitchen extractor fan had previously been installed but that the cord was too short for her to reach. She also advised that she did not consider an OT report necessary for the landlord to address the windows.
On 21 September 2021, the landlord advised it considered her concerns to be a formal complaint and that it would respond by 6 October 2021. Its internal records show it consulted with its surveyors regarding the current safety certificates for the property, which showed it was “satisfactory.” The surveyor also noted that the kitchen window was fully functioning and reiterated that an OT report was therefore required.
The landlord provided its stage one response in relation to her concerns about the extractor fan on 6 October 2021, which included the following:
1. The extractor fan fitted had a standard length cord, but given the resident’s concerns, it had arranged for the length to be extended on 14 October 2021.
2. It offered £150 for the inconvenience this had caused.
3. It also reiterated its request for any other information about what she considered to be a health and safety issue.
The resident replied that she had previously expressed what she considered to be health and safety issues and that she didn’t wish to repeat herself. She also reported that she was not happy with the functionality of the extractor fan, as there was still a significant amount of water vapour in the air when she cooked.
The landlord advised that it would investigate this concern. Its internal records show that it consulted its contractor, who advised that the extractor fan would never have the same functionality as a cooker hood but that it was controlled by a thermistor and so would run until it cleared any condensation, although this would take more time to achieve than a cooker hood. Regarding any possible health and safety concerns, the landlord noted that the local authority’s environmental health team had recently visited the property and had not raised any concerns.
On 18 October 2021, the resident reported that the landlord’s operatives had failed to attend the appointment on 14 October 2021. The landlord’s notes state that the resident refused access. They further note that it had attempted to call the resident to discuss this, but she had been uncooperative. As a result, its repairs team (which had been managing the case up to this point) sought the involvement of the tenancy management team in order to improve communication and resolve the issue.
The works were subsequently booked for 18 November 2021. However, the landlord’s records state that upon attending, the resident refused the works as the internal colour of the new units was different from the existing units. As a result, she requested an entire new kitchen. The landlord’s notes further state that unfortunately, the existing units were no longer available, and the units sourced were the closest possible match.
In early December 2021, it is evident that the landlord inspected the extractor fan and considered it to be in working order. The resident disputed it was working and requested that her complaint be escalated.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 24 December 2021, which included the following:
1. Regarding the extractor fan, the landlord advised that it was working correctly and complied with all health and safety requirements. It encouraged the resident to report any further issues she experienced.
2. Regarding her windows, the landlord advised it considered the windows to be in working order. As such, it required an OT assessment to determine what was required to make the windows usable for the resident.
3. Regarding the kitchen units, it advised that it was not possible to source identical units. It noted the units it had sourced were identical except for the internal colour, and that it was satisfied it had done all it could to match the units. It noted the resident’s request for a new kitchen and advised it would keep her informed about future planned works.
4. Regarding the redecorating of the kitchen, it apologised for the instances where there had been missed appointments. It advised it would arrange an inspection in the new year to determine what was outstanding and then arrange the necessary works.
5. It noted the resident’s concerns about its staff and their customer service. It advised that it had discussed the concerns with the staff, who disputed that they had deliberately provided poor service. The landlord advised that if the resident had any specific examples, it would investigate them further.
6. It offered £200 in compensation to reflect the ongoing frustration the issues were causing the resident.
In response, the resident noted that the missed/failed appointments had caused her considerable inconvenience as she had to move things out of the kitchen in preparation. The delay to the works meant things she had moved were in the way and therefore a hazard. She continued to dispute the need for an OT report for the windows, as she considered the landlord had previously agreed to replace them in 2020. She also reiterated her continued dissatisfaction in relation to the units and the painting work in the kitchen.
It is evident that the resident made enquiries with an OT in or around January 2022. The OT advised that they did not consider an assessment necessary as the windows would be difficult for most people to open given that the kitchen worktop made reaching them difficult. The OT noted they were happy to discuss this with the landlord directly. It is not evident that this correspondence or the OT’s information was shared with the landlord.
Throughout early February 2022, the landlord sought to arrange a further inspection. It explained that this was to ensure the correct contractors were booked and materials arranged. The resident declined a further inspection on the basis that there had already been previous inspections and instead requested the works be carried out without further inspection.
On 8 February 2022, the landlord advised it had booked works to carry out any necessary works to the extractor fan, to fit the units that it had available, and to complete any necessary redecoration works. However, it maintained its position that it would not complete any works to the window without an OT report.
The landlord’s records indicate that dates for the works were booked in February 2022, but that these did not go ahead as the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s position. In an attempt to resolve the issue, in March 2022, the landlord offered a further £250 in compensation to recognise the length of time the issue had been going on and rebooked the works for April 2022. However, while an initial inspection occurred, no further works have been completed.
The landlord has advised that the resident will no longer communicate with it directly, and will only communicate through her representative. This has delayed any further progress in arranging the outstanding works.

Assessment and findings

Units

Based on the landlord’s records, it is not conclusive why it agreed to install an additional unit behind the washing machine in the resident’s kitchen. The landlord has described the works as a “good will gesture,” which was made by a surveyor who no longer worked with the landlord. Regardless of why it instigated these works, having now raised the resident’s expectations that they would be completed, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to do so in a timely manner.
As noted above, the landlord’s repairs policy splits repairs into two categories, either emergency or ‘by appointment’, i.e. non-emergency. While there is no specific timeframe noted for non-emergency repairs, the Ombudsman would expect these to be completed within a reasonable timeframe, dependent on the circumstances. The installation of the units would be considered non-emergency works.
The Ombudsman understands that some delays can be reasonable. The initial works were delayed due to the landlord’s operatives identifying that additional time would be required. While this delay is unfortunate, a short delay may be reasonable if the landlord provided clear communication as to why this was not identified earlier. This did not occur, however.
Similarly, the delay in the second attempt to carry out the works was caused by other works delaying the operatives. This was unforeseeable and again, could be reasonable if the landlord provided a high level of communication with the resident. Given this was the second failed appointment, a written apology would also have been appropriate. This was not provided, however.
Regarding later failed appointments, there has been disagreement over the reasons why they failed. On some occasions, the resident has advised that there has been a no show, whereas the landlord’s operatives have reported no access. In such circumstances, the landlord should have followed up in writing on why it considered the appointment to have failed. This would create an audit trail for its actions, allow the resident to understand why an appointment has been unsuccessful, and give her the opportunity to comment. The landlord did not do this, however.
Additionally, for one appointment in July 2021, the landlord initially advised there had been no access before later stating the appointment had been cancelled due to the units not being available. At no point did it identify this misinformation or apologise to the resident.
In its stage two response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had been inconvenienced by multiple issues and offered £200 in compensation across all of her concerns. Based on the wording in the response, however, it appears this was only a £50 increase to the £150 it had offered solely in relation to the extractor fan complaint, discussed below. The landlord also offered a further £250 in March 2022 to recognise the impact the ongoing issues were having on the resident.
In a recent communication with this service, the landlord advised that it had reviewed its communication regarding the missed appointments and concluded it was not sufficient. It advised that it intends to apologise to the resident and offer £350 in compensation for its poor communication and the inconvenience caused. The landlord has acknowledged its new offer would not impact this service’s investigation given it has come at such a late stage, but advised it was doing so in the interest of improving its relationship with the resident. The Ombudsman confirms that while it is encouraging to see that the landlord is seeking to learn from the outcomes of this case, this offer will not be taken into consideration when reaching a determination about its actions during the period of the complaint.
In addition to the concerns about the missed appointments, the resident also raised concerns that the unit was not an identical match to the other units in the kitchen. She has also requested an entirely new kitchen, given that a suitable match cannot be found.
The landlord’s responsibility is to provide a functional kitchen. The landlord has also noted that, where possible, it will attempt to ensure the kitchen is aesthetically pleasing. Initially, the landlord used temporary boards to create a workable unit in the kitchen while it attempted to source a matching unit. It is not evident that it informed the resident that its works were intended to be temporary. This led the resident to expend time and trouble when reporting her dissatisfaction with the works. Only then did the landlord advise that the initial works were temporary.
The Ombudsman understands that it is not always possible for matching units to be installed. In this case, the landlord took steps to source an identical unit; however, the units previously used were no longer manufactured. Instead, the landlord found a close match with a different internal colour. It appropriately explained to the resident that it was not possible to colour match and that this was the best option. It also appropriately reiterated this offer to the resident after she initially declined the works. The Ombudsman understands that the units have now been installed.
Regarding the resident’s request that her entire kitchen be replaced on the basis that a unit did not match, the Ombudsman understands that landlords have finite resources that they must manage responsibly. Given that, while the mismatched colours were less aesthetically pleasing, the kitchen still functioned, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline the resident’s request for a full kitchen replacement. It was also appropriate that it committed to updating her about future planned programmes of work for kitchen replacements.
While it is evident the resident declined access for some appointments due to concerns about the proposed works, as detailed above, there were significant failings in the landlord’s overall communication. These failings contributed to the breakdown in the relationship between the parties, which unreasonably extended this issue. While the landlord has since independently reflected on this failing, at the time of the complaint, its offer totalling £350 across all the issues did not reflect the impact caused to the resident.
In consideration of the above, there has been maladministration, for which compensation is appropriate. Given the amount of time this issue has been going on, an amount of £650 in compensation is ordered to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This amount replaces any previous offers made by the landlord.
Additionally, the Ombudsman notes that the resident has raised concerns about some gaps in the units in her kitchen. It is not evident if these have been addressed. Therefore, a further order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident and arrange an inspection relating to any outstanding repair works in her kitchen.
Finally, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to review its repair processes to ensure it effectively records instances of no access and communicates such instances to residents where appropriate.

Extractor fan

It is not evident when the resident initially raised an issue with the extractor fan; however, the landlord’s records note it originally intended to replace the extractor fan in July 2021. This was delayed until August 2021 due to the various failed appointments discussed above.
It is evident that the extractor fan installed had a standard length activation cord; however, this length was too short for the resident to use. While it would have been best practice for the landlord to have double checked that the resident could reach it at the time of installation, the landlord’s operative reported that the extractor fan was replaced like for like, and so it was reasonable for them to assume the new one would have been usable.
The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the length of the cord, and the landlord chose to treat this as a formal complaint. This was reasonable, as it gave the landlord the opportunity to explain its actions and formally set out an action plan to rectify the issue.
Having been made aware of the resident’s need for a longer cord, the landlord appropriately arranged for it to be lengthened. While some improvements of this nature may require additional evidence, such as an OT report, given that this was a relatively small and inexpensive improvement, it was appropriate that the landlord used its discretion to carry out these works without requiring further evidence.
Following its stage one response, the resident expressed her concern about the level of steam caused when cooking in the property and that the extractor fan did not sufficiently disperse this. The landlord subsequently carried out an appropriate further investigation by liaising with its contractors about the extractor fan. The contractors informed the landlord that the extractor fan would eventually disperse the steam as it was controlled by a thermistor, which kept the extractor fan running until the level of moisture in the air was reduced to normal levels. They explained, however, that this would not be as efficient as a cooker hood, nor was it designed to be.
In its stage two response, the landlord did not provide this level of detail to the resident and instead only advised that it considered the extractor fan to be working as expected. In separate correspondence, the resident expressed concern that the extractor fan did not switch off when she pulled the cord; however, it is likely she misunderstood that it would run until the level of water vapour was reduced. Had the landlord provided the level of information its contractors had given, she may have had a better understanding of its function, which would have avoided further frustration.
Additionally, given that the contractor indicated the extractor fan would not immediately remove all steam from cooking and it is evident the resident experienced issues with this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have given its position on the suitability of the ventilation in the property, which it did not do.
Following the landlord’s stage two response, the landlord offered to reinspect the extractor fan; however, as discussed above, no further progress has been made with this.
In its stage one response, the landlord offered £150 in compensation to reflect the frustration the issue with the short extractor fan cord has caused the resident. It increased the amount of compensation to £200 in its stage two response; however, this amount was intended to cover all the issues experienced by the resident.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s failure to fully inform the resident about the functionality of the extractor fan, along with the initial missed opportunity to check the cord length was suitable, has led to frustration for the resident. The landlord’s offer of £150 in compensation reflects the inconvenience caused and is proportionate in the circumstances. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this amounts to reasonable redress for this element of the complaint.
A recommendation has been made below that the landlord contact the resident to fully explain the functionality of the extractor fan and reiterate its offer to inspect it for any possible defects. Additionally, the landlord should carry out an inspection to determine the suitability of the ventilation in the property and keep the resident informed of its findings.
In addition to the issues with the extractor fan, the Ombudsman notes that the resident referenced concerns about the health and safety in the property. The landlord appropriately asked her for more information about this concern and carried out inspections of the safety certificates for the property. It also made sure the resident was aware of its most recent fire inspections and procedures. This response was reasonable in the circumstances.
It is evident that part of the resident’s concern about health and safety was due to her having moved things in the property to accommodate works that were repeatedly delayed. The impact of the missed appointments has been addressed above. While the rearranged items would certainly have caused inconvenience for the resident, the landlord was not responsible for where she chose to relocate them or for any safety hazard this inadvertently caused.

Paint

It is not disputed that during its initial works, the workmanship of the redecoration works completed by the landlord was substandard. This was confirmed during subsequent inspections by the landlord’s surveyor.
The resident also noted that the landlord had not repainted her skirting board, woodwork, or ceiling. It is not evident that the landlord had committed to do this; however, it should have clearly set out what works it intended to do from the outset, which it did not do. It was therefore appropriate that it committed to repaint these areas.
While there were multiple causes for the delays to appointments, they were in part due to a discussion between the parties around the type of paint used in the kitchen. The resident expressed concern that the paint used did not specify it was for ‘kitchen’ use and provided information about a suitable paint available at most hardware stores. The landlord reviewed this information and eventually concluded that the paint it used was the same paint but labelled differently as it was for trade use. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord did not immediately realise this. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, it was reasonable that the landlord thoroughly investigated the resident’s concerns, and the time taken to respond did not significantly impact its service delivery.
While it is evident the redecoration works remain outstanding, this is due to a dispute over the other issues raised in the complaint. Throughout the course of the complaint, the landlord has remained committed to redecorating the kitchen using the resident’s preferred paint once the other works were completed. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that the landlord is still seeking to arrange these works through the resident’s representatives.

Windows

It is not disputed that the window currently installed in the kitchen is not broken but is of a design that is difficult for the resident to use, given that there is a worktop in the way.
Following the resident raising concerns about the window, the landlord repeatedly requested more information about her concerns. The resident advised that the landlord had previously agreed to window works a year prior. The landlord appropriately investigated this information and advised that its records indicated only works relating to other windows had been agreed upon.
The landlord continued to request further information about the resident’s concerns. The resident continued to refer to her understanding that works had previously been agreed to. The Ombudsman expects both parties to be proactive and provide reasonable information for the resolution of any issues. Given that the landlord indicated it did not have records of any previous agreements or discussions, the Ombudsman would expect the resident to assist it with information about the issues she was experiencing. The landlord was therefore not responsible for the delays caused by the resident initially declining to give further information.
Where a window is not fundamentally broken but a resident is unable to use it, it is reasonable for the landlord to seek to establish how best to improve the window to suit the resident. The landlord is not an expert in assessing an individual’s specific needs, and so it is common practice to seek a report from an OT. In this case, the landlord appropriately explained why it needed an OT report and signposted the resident to her GP to obtain one. As noted above, the landlord has finite resources and a responsibility to use them effectively. It was therefore reasonable that it continued to request an OT report so that any works to the windows would be suitable. It was therefore not responsible for any delays caused by the resident declining to seek an OT report.
It is evident that in or around January 2022, the resident spoke with an OT. Based on the communications, it appears the OT had previously visited the property and determined the window would be difficult for anyone to use given that the counter was in the way. On that basis, the OT advised that a report may not be necessary for the landlord to consider a replacement. The OT offered to discuss this with the landlord; however, it is not evident that this communication was shared with the landlord. The landlord has also advised this service that it has not received this communication.
Additionally, while it may be the case that the window could be improved for a standard user, given that the resident experienced difficulties with the extractor fan and required specific adaptions it was reasonable for the landlord to continue to seek an OT report to ensure any changes it made were done so with the resident’s needs in mind.

Complaints handling

As noted above, the landlord’s complaints policy states a stage one response will be provided within 10 working days of a complaint.
The resident initially expressed her dissatisfaction about delays to the works in June 2021. The landlord confirmed it was treating this as a formal complaint on 17 June 2021. However, it did not provide any communication, which it formally identified as a stage one response in relation to these concerns.
While it continued to liaise with the resident about the issues, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to ensure the resident understood when a formal response would be provided or to explain why it considered this to no longer be necessary.
When the landlord eventually provided a stage one response in October 2021, it only related to the extractor fan. This denied the resident the opportunity to hear the landlord’s formal position about the other issues until its stage two response.
The landlord’s failure to follow its complaints policy meant it potentially missed the opportunity to identify and rectify the issues that led to delays at an earlier point. This amounted to service failure, for which £150 in compensation is appropriate to recognise the impact this had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

As noted above, in accordance with paragraphs 42(k), 42(f), and 42(g) of the Scheme, the complaints about the landlord’s response to the resident’s SAR, concerns about her service charge, and concerns about its communications with her GP are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint regarding its response to the resident’s reports about her kitchen units.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaint regarding its response to the resident’s reports about her extractor fan.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports about her kitchen:
1. paint;
2. window.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

Units

It was reasonable that the landlord was unable to source an identical matching unit and instead installed a closely matching unit. However, the landlord’s poor communication surrounding its initial works and multiple failed appointments unreasonable extended these works and caused frustration for the resident. This amounted to maladministration in the circumstances.

Extractor fan

The landlord appropriately identified that its initial installation of the extractor fan caused the resident inconvenience. Its failure to fully explain the functionality of the extractor fan also led to frustration for the resident. It was therefore appropriate that it offered compensation in recognition of these failings, which amounted to reasonable redress.

Paint

While its initial works were substandard, the landlord has appropriately committed to redecorating, including additional areas subsequently raised by the resident.

Windows

It was reasonable for the landlord to seek an OT report to ensure any works it carried out were suitable for the resident’s needs. While it is evident the resident spoke with an OT, who indicated a report may not be necessary, given that this was not shared with the landlord, it was reasonable that it continued to seek an OT report.

Complaints handling

The landlord failed to provide a stage one response to the complaint raised in June 2021 despite acknowledging it and raising the resident’s expectations that a response would be provided.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £800, comprising:
1. £650 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor communication surrounding works to the kitchen;
2. £150 for its ineffective complaints handling.
This replaces the landlord’s previous offers. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
The landlord is to contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and arrange an inspection relating to any outstanding repair works in her kitchen.
The landlord is to contact the District Council, to seek confirmation of the information provided by the County Council. If it is then confirmed an OT assessment is no longer the correct process, the landlord complete a survey of the window and complete any works identified.

Recommendations

The landlord is to review its repair processes to ensure it effectively records instances of no access and communicates such instances to residents where appropriate.
The landlord is to contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and explain the functionality of the extractor fan, and reiterate its offer to inspect it for any possible defects with the extractor fan.
The landlord is to carry out an inspection to determine the suitability of the ventilation in the property and keep the resident informed of its findings.
The landlord is to reiterate its offer of £150 compensation in relation to the extractor fan, if this is yet to have been accepted.