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

Birmingham City Council (202011501)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011501

Birmingham City Council

18 March 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 a request for a replacement kitchen.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

  1. Under section 11 of the Housing Act 1985 the landlord is obliged to keep the resident’s property in good repair.  This includes fixtures that were in the property, such as the kitchen, at the time the property was let.
  2. The landlord Repairs Policy states, “A repair shall be undertaken in all cases. Only where it is not practical or uneconomic to carry out a repair shall a renewal or replacement be carried out. Some items may be removed without replacement, these will be determined by the Council or defined within the guidance notes for use when considering repairs and renewals to various common items…”.
  3. The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms the landlord’s obligation to repair and maintain “Kitchen units, work surfaces, larder, internal stores”. With regards to kitchens and bathrooms, the policy elaborates “Repairs shall be carried out in the first instance, where one off replacement of units is required then it shall be on a like for like basis. Where non-standard units are fitted, these shall be replaced with the Council’s standard unit”.

 

 

Summary of Events

  1. The resident has stated that she moved into her property in August 2020. The landlord has confirmed that the resident’s property is a house and has provided the tenancy terms and conditions, but has not provided the signed tenancy agreement.
  2. It is not disputed that the resident has requested repairs to her kitchen.  She has stated that she reported her kitchen unit doors not closing properly, then falling off. The landlord’s repair records state that when its contractor attended on 30 October 2020 the “Tenant has refused repair to kitchen because they won’t look the same” and that the “job [was] shutdown as cancel[led]”.
  3. The resident on 30 October 2020 submitted a complaint stating that she was unhappy as she had reported on several occasions over three months that her kitchen unit drawers and doors were falling off; however, the contractor wanted to install unmatching doors and drawers whilst leaving “the rest [which] keep falling off”. She advised that she would still like a new kitchen which she understood was over 30 years old.
  4. On 2 November 2020, in response to the resident’s complaint the landlord relayed comments from the contractor which stated it would always seek to repair kitchen units wherever possible; it would only look to replace an item where it was uneconomical to repair, or it was unable to do so. The contractor stated that in line with the contract it had with the landlord it would fit standard white doors and drawers in every situation. The resident responded on the same day stating that the contractor’s response omitted that one cupboard door had broken off along with one drawer, and two cupboard doors did not close and were close to falling off.  She stated that “these have been put back on 3 times since August … so there was only 1 door fully attached in working condition”.  
  5. In an exchange of correspondence between 4 and 6 November 2020 the landlord stated that it did not uphold the complaint as the resident had refused the repair. It stated that it had no liability to replace door units with the same colour, pattern, or style as long as they were fit for purpose. In response to the resident stating that the kitchen was installed in 1977 and could have been replaced when new let void works were carried out in July, the landlord stated that the property would have been inspected prior to it being let to her and would have met its Empty Property Standard. It advised the resident to call its repairs service to raise another repair to make her kitchen safe. The landlord also advised the resident to contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
  6. Within the correspondence, the resident noted that the landlord had not permitted her to replace the kitchen as she was not a secure tenant. She asked if she could cover the cost of the contractor replacing all the doors and drawers, but the landlord did not respond to this point.
  7. The resident did not raise another repair request. On 11 December 2020 she raised another complaint stating that the contractor had agreed to replace two doors but did not agree to repair or replace two doors that were misaligned and not closing properly, therefore she refused the works.  The resident stated that she had asked for all doors to be replaced due to wear and tear but was refused.  She also noted that since the contractor’s visit, one of the doors that it had not offered to replace had fallen off and injured her foot.
  8. On 5 January 2021 the landlord responded to the resident again copying comments from its contractor. The contractor apologised for the door that fell off, stated it would raise this with the operative who attended and asked the resident to book another appointment so it could return to fix it.  The contractor also reiterated that it would not replace an item considered to be repairable.
  9. The resident escalated the complaint querying which door the contractor was referring to as there had been three broken doors and one drawer at the last visit and the one that fell off was not problematic before.  She also queried why the landlord had refused her offer to pay for all doors. In a further email the resident raised a general concern about the contractor having to carry out repeat visits to reinstall individual doors. She contended that the landlord should have ordered the contractor to replace her kitchen prior to the property being let to her.
  10. On 6 January 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s escalated complaint stating it understood that the resident had refused repairs on 30 October 2020 as the doors would not look the same and that it had no obligation to ensure that units matched, only that they were fit for purpose. It further advised that when carrying out works to a void property, if the units did not meet the Empty Property Standard, they were changed if necessary or repaired. It advised that it was not carrying out kitchen refurbishment works to occupied properties at that time due to prioritising fire safety works in high-rise blocks in accordance with government guidance. The landlord referred the resident to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) if she remained unhappy.
  11. The resident responded on 6 January 2021 reiterating her points that there were three doors that were “off” and that each time a door fell off she would have to raise a repair request, and therefore go “round and round”.
  12. On 7 and 8 January 2021 the resident referred her complaint to this Service stating that she wanted new kitchen unit doors and drawer fronts (but not carcasses).  She stated that the landlord did not offer to replace all the doors that were “hanging off”, only offering to replace one door and ignored her request that she “take the charge” for the replacement units.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is understood that the resident at least in part wanted her kitchen replaced to preserve its aesthetics, and appreciates her concerns. However, under the relevant legislation, the landlord is simply required to ensure the kitchen is in good repair; it is not obliged to install kitchen parts that match the colour scheme, style or material type of the existing units.  Furthermore, the landlord’s Repairs Policy specifically states that it should install “standard” units where it cannot install like-for-like units.  Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord did not agree to replace the resident’s kitchen on aesthetic grounds as it was not obliged to, and the decision accorded with its Repairs Policy.
  2. Whilst it was reasonable that the landlord did not replace the kitchen on aesthetic grounds, underlying the resident’s request was her dissatisfaction with the repair condition of her kitchen which the landlord was obliged to consider. It is not disputed that the resident reported repairs to kitchen doors and that the landlord’s contractor has attended the resident’s property to carry out works.  However, full repair records have not been provided to this Service, therefore it is not evident that the landlord has kept an audit trail confirming how many repair requests by the resident and visits by its contractor have been made, and the details of the requests and actions of the contractor. This includes the visit of 30 October 2020, where the contractor simply noted that the resident had refused works without confirming exactly what works it had identified and proposed.
  3. This lack of records is concerning and a failing on the part of the landlord. Clear record keeping and record management is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the condition of its fittings within the property, enable repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents.
  4. It is clear from the resident’s statements throughout her complaint that she disagreed with the landlord’s assessment of which kitchen doors required repair. She advised that there were doors which the contractor would not repair or replace, but which she thought were not in suitable repair such as being misaligned and not closing properly. She additionally made reference to a drawer.
  5. The complaint process provided an opportunity for the landlord to understand why the resident remained dissatisfied and put matters right.  However, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s underlying concerns about the condition of her kitchen and the assessment and actions of the contractor. Nor did the landlord make a commitment to inspect the doors and drawer that the resident referred to in her complaint.  In fact, it only stated that it would attend to the door that fell off an injured her foot. As such the landlord did not take the necessary steps to identify the substantive repair issues complained of and resolve the resident’s complaint.
  6. Compounding this, the resident indicated that there had been three visits in three months and repeat repairs were required such was the condition of her kitchen units. However, the landlord did not address or even acknowledge this point, simply taking the position that the contractor would continue to repair the doors when the contractor thought this was appropriate. This was unreasonable given the potential inconvenience to the resident from having to make repair requests and provide access on multiple occasions. Moreover, landlords have a regulatory requirement to efficiently manage their repair budgets so should consider whether it is cost effective to carry out repeat visits to attend to the same repair.
  7. In support of her request for a replacement kitchen the resident said that the landlord should have renewed her kitchen prior to letting the property. The landlord in response advised that the kitchen “would have” met its Empty Property Standard and that an inspection “would have” taken place. This response was speculative and cursory. While the landlord’s own complaint policy does not detail how it will investigate complaints, Part 4.4 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out that “A complaint should be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity, having assessed what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues”.
  8. There is no good reason why the landlord did not check the property’s repair and void records, in particular as the resident’s tenancy was relatively new. As such, the landlord’s response to this aspect of the resident’s complaint where she contended her kitchen should have been renewed prior to her tenancy was unreasonable. This was a failure by the landlord to engage with the resident’s complaint and take the necessary steps to investigate and resolve it.
  9. The landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectation about future works by explaining that there were no imminent plans to refurbish her kitchen under a planned programme of works due to the prioritisation of fire safety.  Nonetheless, given the age that the resident understood her kitchen to be, it is recommended that the landlord advise the resident about the process through which her kitchen could be added to a planned works programme and a timeframe for this as far as possible, considering all the circumstances.
  10. The resident when pursuing her complaint advised that she would fund, at least in part, the replacement of all kitchen doors.  This demonstrated an intention on her part to find a mutually satisfactory solution to the complaint, as she would be incurring a cost she was not obliged to.  The landlord was not obliged to agree to the resident’s request.  Nonetheless, by not responding to the resident’s suggestion, it again demonstrated a failure to engage with the complaint and missed an opportunity to explore a possible solution.  Part 5.6 of the Complaint Handling Code sets out that “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions”. It is recommended that the landlord formally responds to the resident’s suggestion, making clear the reasons if declining the request and setting out the terms if the request is to be accepted.
  11. The landlord in dealing with the resident’s complaints largely relied on the statements of its contractor. Whilst it is reasonable for a landlord to seek information from a contractor, the landlord ultimately has ownership of the complaint and should critically assess the contractor’s response as part of the investigation process.
  12. There is no evidence that this was the case here, with the landlord simply copying the contractor’s responses without identifying the lack of detail in the responses.  The landlord in responding to the complaint reiterated general statements that it was not obliged to replace the kitchen and that it sought to carry out repairs in the first instance, without engaging with the substantive issues the resident had raised.  It also did not respond to the resident’s final points that there were three doors hanging off that the contractor would not repair or replace. This is further evidence of the landlord not actively engaging with the details of the resident’s complaint and seeking to take reasonable steps to resolve it.
  13. It is also noted that the landlord in the complaint response of January 2021 incorrectly referred the resident to the LGSCO. This error was not of material significance as the resident contacted this Service afterwards regardless.  Nonetheless, landlords are required under this Service’s Complaint Handling Code to “provide details of how to escalate the matter to the Housing Ombudsman Service if the resident remains dissatisfied”, and therefore should provide correct information. It is therefore recommended that the landlord issue guidance to staff members who deal with complaints about the right of residents to complain to this Service (as opposed to the LGSCO) so that errors are reduced and the Code is adhered to.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a request for a replacement kitchen.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord is not obliged to replace the kitchen units as a whole or replace all the kitchen fronts but to repair only those kitchen doors deemed to be in disrepair. It was reasonable that the landlord did not agree to replace the resident’s kitchen on aesthetic grounds as it was not obliged to, and the decision accorded with its Repairs Policy.
  2. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s underlying concerns about the condition of her kitchen and the assessment and actions of the contractor. Nor did the landlord make a commitment to inspect the doors and drawer that the resident referred to in her complaint. This included not responding to the resident’s final points that there were three doors hanging off that the contractor would not repair or replace.  As such, the landlord did not take the necessary steps to identify the substantive repair issues complained of and resolve the resident’s complaint.
  3. Furthermore, it was unreasonable that the landlord simply stated that it would repair the kitchen doors without acknowledging the potential inconvenience to the resident from having to make repeat repair requests and provide access on multiple occasions.
  4. The landlord’s response to the aspect of the resident’s complaint where she contended her kitchen should have been renewed prior to her tenancy was unreasonable because there is no evidence it properly investigated this complaint by considering relevant evidence. The landlord overly relied on its contractor’s responses in addressing the complaint, and it failed to consider all complaint points made, including a proposal of resolution by the resident. 

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. Within the next four weeks the landlord is ordered to:

a.     Pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the handling of her reports of repair to her kitchen.

b.     Arrange an inspection of the resident’s kitchen units, identifying any parts of the units, including doors and drawers, which require repair or replacement. The outcome of this, as well as timescales for the work identified, should be communicated to the resident in writing within two weeks of the inspection.

 

  1. Within the next six weeks the landlord is ordered to:

a.     Review the failings in complaint handling identified in this case including why the complaint was not investigated with consideration given to relevant records, why not all points of complaint were addressed, and why the landlord referred the resident to the incorrect Ombudsman.

b.     Confirm to the Ombudsman whether action has already been taken to ensure these failings are not repeated, and;

c.      If not, confirm to the Ombudsman what further action will be taken to reduce the risk of these failings happening again. This may include training staff in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

d.     Review why appropriate repair records could not be provided in this case. The landlord should consider whether improvements in its repairs record keeping and/or record retrieval are required and, if so, how these will be achieved. The outcome of the landlord’s consideration should be shared with the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

  1. Within the next four weeks, the landlord is requested to confirm its intentions in respect of the following recommendations:

a.     The landlord advises the resident about the process through which her kitchen could be added to a planned works programme and a timeframe for this as far as possible, considering all the circumstances.

b.     The landlord formally responds to the resident’s suggestion that she, at least in part, fund a replacement kitchen, making clear the reasons if declining the request and setting out the terms if the request is to be accepted.