Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202331475)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331475

Thirteen Housing Group Limited

31 January 2025

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 handling of the resident’s request for redecoration following the landlord’s kitchen repair.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The tenancy began on 13 December 2019.
3. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
4. On 24 October 2023 the landlord repaired the sink base unit and plinth in the resident’s kitchen. The resident was not satisfied with the standard of the repair and raised a complaint. The job was recalled and on 30 October 2023 the landlord revisited and completed a further repair.
5. The resident was satisfied with the repair but asked the landlord to redecorate the paintwork that he said was damaged by the landlord’s repair. The landlord confirmed it was not its responsibility, and the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s decision.
6. On 20 November 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response and did not uphold the complaint. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaint process. On 6 December 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response and said it would not change the stage 1 outcome. It confirmed that decoration was the resident’s responsibility.

Assessment and findings

7. The resident’s tenancy agreement tells us that the landord is responsible for the internal walls, floors and ceilings, doors and door frames, door hinges and skirting boards, but not internal painting and decorating. It confirms the resident is responsible for decorating the internal parts of the home as often as is necessary to keep them in reasonable decorative order. The landlord’s repair procedure reiterates this.
8. On 24 October 2023 the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s repair in his kitchen. The landlord responded the next day and recalled the job. It told the resident a visit would be arranged to inspect the work. The landlord was customer focused and responded quickly. It acted reasonably. The resident knew the landlord had listened to him and acted on his dissatisfaction.
9. On 30 October 2023 the landlord inspected the repair. It applied caulk (waterproof filler and sealant) and adjusted a kitchen unit door. It confirmed the other work completed was of an acceptable standard. It was 4 working days since the resident complained. The landlord acted reasonably, it took responsibility for the standard of the repair and checked it quickly.
10. On 31 October 2023 the landlord confirmed to the resident that cosmetic work in the property was the resident’s responsibility. It clarified that it would not paint the affected area. The resident made a further complaint about the decision. On 2 November 2023 the landlord called the resident to confirm the decoration was the resident’s responsibility. While it may not have been the outcome the resident wanted the landlord was quick and transparent in its decision. The landlord acted reasonably. The resident knew the landlord’s position.
11. Once the complaint was logged within the landlord’s internal complaint’s process, the landlord investigated the complaint. The landlord spoke to the repairs manager and the operatives who attended. They confirmed what materials were used and that the wall itself was not damaged. This information was reiterated in the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses.
12. The evidence provided as part of this investigation showed that at stage 2 the evidence and reasoning was fully reviewed before the final response was completed. The landlord acted reasonably. It was in keeping with its complaints, compliments and feedback policy that it would treat all complaints seriously, promptly and investigate at both stages on the process.
13. In its complaint responses the landlord should have documented evidence from its policy and procedures, and the tenancy agreement. This may have helped the resident understand the landlord’s decision and that it had acted fairly. However, it did set out its decision and reasons for its decision clearly.
14. In summary, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for redecoration following the landlord’s kitchen repair. It carried out a timely investigation, that was fair and transparent. It communicated with the resident clearly, verbally and in writing.

Determination

15. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for redecoration following the landlord’s kitchen repair.

Recommendations

16. The landlord to consider improving clarity around responsibility for decoration and decoration following repairs in its resident information, for example within its guidance on repairs and guidance on moving into one of its properties. It could also feature in the frequently asked questions section on the website.