Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Birmingham City Council (202114525)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114525

Birmingham City Council

3 February 2022


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:
    1. The resident’s request for a replacement kitchen.
    2. A woodlice infestation.
    3. The resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. 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 will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman can only consider complaints that have exhausted a member’s complaint procedure, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. In her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident referred to an issue about a pest infestation in her home. This matter was not raised as part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord. Because of that, in line with paragraph 39(a), this issue will not be commented on in this report. If the resident would like the landlord to respond to this issue she would need to raise a separate complaint with the landlord about it.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident’s tenancy agreement started on 15 May 2015.
  2. Although we have not seen evidence of it, the landlord and resident both agree that in March 2021 the landlord inspected the resident’s kitchen after the resident raised concerns about its condition and layout. As a result of this visit the landlord arranged for a contractor to visit the property for further inspections.
  3. We have not been given the date that the contractor visited the property. However, the landlord’s records show that on the 6 July 2021 the resident raised a complaint as the contractor had visited but did not complete any repairs or agree to a kitchen replacement. The complaint notes state “job down as completed. tenant called to say no repair was carried out to her kitchen cupboards tenant advised when [the contractors] attended they did not carry out any work. they advised tenant because of the layout they could not do anything. they advised tenant they were going to put a quote together for what needed to be done and pass it back to the council. she does not want a new kitchen just one that is usable.”
  4. The landlord’s records show that on 8 July 2021 it emailed the contractor the exact complaint notes quoted above and asked for their response to the complaint.
  5. The landlord’s records show that the contractor responded to the landlord on 28 July 2021. They provided photos of the kitchen taken by the subcontractor who had visited the resident. The contractor explained that the subcontractor had reported that there were no missing or damaged units or surfaces, the kitchen was in good condition, and above the minimum required specification for kitchens. It added that the subcontractor had not found any issues regarding the layout of the kitchen and had not advised that it would be quoting for any work. As no repairs had been identified there was no work to do. It advised that the resident would need to speak to the local authority’s home improvement scheme if she wanted to be considered for a full renewal.
  6. The landlord issued its first complaint response on 28 July 2021. It stated “[the contractor] advise[s] that that there are no missing or damaged units or surfaces, and the kitchen is above minimum specification for what is to be provided in a kitchen. They have attached photos taken by [the subcontractor] on their visit, they have not advised any issues regards layout and not advised they would be quoting for any works. No repairs have been identified so there are no repairs for us to carry out. You will need to speak to your hosing officer if you want to be considered for a kitchen renewal. The kitchen is good condition as per the photographs [the contractor] provided.”
  7. The landlord’s records show that the resident escalated the complaint on 4 August 2021. The notes of the escalation state “[The resident] asked for her complaint to be reviewed as she is not satisfied with the outcome. [The resident] state that in her original request she state that the lay out of the kitchen was not functional and she asked for it to be rectified and the kitchen cupboards and drawers are damaged and this was noted also by [the landlord’s] member of staff who visited the property in March 2021 to assess the job and he identified the items of cupboards that was damaged and promised that these would be replaced.[The resident] would like these items of cupboards to be replaced as promised so she can have a nearly functional kitchen”
  8. The landlord issued its review response on 17 September 2021. It repeated the same information as the stage one response, that no repairs were carried out as none were identified and that the kitchen was above the minimum specification for what has to be provided in a kitchen.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied and in an email to this Service on 28 September 2021 she wrote “The kitchen layout is not fit for purpose the cooker is blocking cupboard access – there is a problem with wood lice in the kitchen Some of the kitchen doors are damaged as per BCC inspection and in addition the work top by the sink has slight damage (all down to wear and tear the kitchen is very old) “ She stated that the resolution she would like was for the landlord to “refit new kitchen so layout is suitable so I can access the cupboards and fix the issue with wood lice”

Assessment and findings

  1. It is not the objective of this investigation to determine whether the resident’s kitchen requires replacing. Rather, this investigation considers whether the landlord has met its obligations and responded to the resident’s request for a kitchen replacement in a reasonable manner, and taken steps to resolve the complaint, in line with any relevant policies and procedures.
  2. When the resident raised concerns about the layout and condition of her kitchen the landlord’s response was appropriate as it visited the property and then arranged for a contractor to inspect the kitchen to see what, if any, work needed to be or could be done.
  3. On 6 July 2021, after the contractor’s visit, the resident raised a complaint as the contractors had not completed any repairs.
  4. As part of its investigations into the complaint the landlord contacted the contractor. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its contractors, who reported that the kitchen was in good condition, was above the minimum specifications required for a kitchen and that no repairs were needed. The contractor also supplied the landlord with photographs of the kitchen. The stage one complaint response was reasonable as it addressed the points the resident had raised, and the landlord used information and photographs provided by the contractor to make its decision. 
  5. When the resident escalated her complaint on 4 August 2021, she raised the additional point that that the landlord’s employee who had visited her property in March 2021 had identified items that were damaged and “promised that they would be replaced”. The landlord’s stage two response did not directly address this issue but reiterated the same position that no repairs were needed and therefore none were carried out. Other than the resident’s recollections, we have no records of what was said between the landlord and the resident in the visit in March 2021. Nonetheless, the inspection that was done following that visit confirmed that the kitchen was in a reasonable condition and not in need of any repairs. While landlords do have multi-decade refurbishment schedules for rooms such as kitchens, requests to modify or update a kitchen, when there are no repair issues and outside the refurbishment period, would be considered an improvement to the property. Landlords are usually not obliged to make such improvements. Because of that, the landlord’s decision about the kitchen, and its responses to the resident, were reasonable.
  6. Both of the landlord’s complaint responses were written by the same person. The landlord’s complaints policy states that if a resident requests a complaint review, the complaint will be looked at by “an independent officer”. As the review was conducted by the same person who had originally responded to the complaint, the landlord did not follow its policy, and acted contrary to basic complaint handling principles of fairness and impartiality.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen was reasonable and was based on information and photographs provided to it by its contractor.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint was not reasonable, as the same person wrote both complaint responses. This did not follow the landlord’s complaint policy and was not in line with basic complaint handling principles of fairness and impartiality.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £75 compensation in recognition of its complaint handling failure
  2. The payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made.