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

Great Places Housing Association (202117663)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117663

Great Places Housing Association

29 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 resident’s complaint is that a replacement unit the landlord installed in his kitchen does not match the existing units and is of poor quality.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident lives in a one-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident entered into an assured shorthold starter tenancy agreement with the landlord on 15 April 2013. The Housing Ombudsman has not been provided with the documentation, however the Ombudsman understands that the tenancy is now an assured tenancy.
  2. The landlord has a Responsive Repairs Policy which sets out its approach to responding to and dealing with repairs.

Summary of events

  1. On 8 October 2020 the landlord attended the resident’s property and identified that there were repairs needed. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 5 February 2021 and changed some units in the resident’s kitchen. Due to the age of the kitchen the landlord could not find identical matches, however it found the closest match.
  2. The landlord attended the property again on 23 September 2021 and confirmed that the sink base unit and a door had been replaced but that its contractors were unable to match the unit due to age. However, a close match was provided. The landlord also confirmed that the kitchen was fit for purpose.
  3. On 5 October 2021, the landlord provided the resident with a stage one complaint response. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s statement that he would not have agreed to the units being replaced if he had been made aware in advance that they did not match. However, the landlord has submitted that the units could not have been left in place in the condition they were in. The landlord apologised but stated that it did not guarantee replacement parts would be exact. It aimed to ensure as close a match as possible.
  4. On 11 October 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised him that the closest available matches, taking into account the age of the kitchen, had been installed. The landlord also advised that the kitchen was due for renewal in 2027 and it would not be able to replace all the kitchen cupboards until that time.
  5. On 14 October 2021 the resident told the landlord that he was not satisfied with the response. He stated that the contractor had only realised that he did not have a matching unit after the old one had been taken out and was too damaged to put back in. He stated that if he had been told earlier, he could have decided if he wanted to have two different kitchen units or not.
  6. On 25 November 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage two complaint response. The landlord stated that it acknowledged that the kitchen “does look unsightly,” “having one odd drawer front in a run of newer door fronts.” The landlord stated that it was “recommending that we change the [other] drawer front, so that the whole run beneath the sink unit and the return to the cooker has matching components.” The landlord further stated that it had looked to get the closest match in this case and confirmed that the kitchen would not be replaced until 2027. The landlord advised the resident to contact it to confirm that it was happy for this resolution.
  7. The resident’s position is that the landlord’s proposed solution is not reasonable. He would like the units to changed so that they are matching.  

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has an obligation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ensure that a house is fit for human habitation. A landlord would be considered to have failed to do so if a property is not reasonably suitable for occupation. Whilst under this legislation the landlord has some specific obligations regarding the supply of water, gas and electricity including sanitary conveniences, it does not have a specific obligation regarding other fixtures.
  2. The Ombudsman has not been provided with the specific terms of the lease agreement between the parties. The Ombudsman has been provided with a copy of the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy. Relevantly, it notes that the landlord’s focus on “cost-effective repairs and maintenance”.
  3. The resident’s complaint is that the colour of the replacement units is not the same as the rest of the kitchen units and the replacement units are poor quality.
  4. The Ombudsman starts by noting that it is not considered that matching coloured units are necessary for a property to be reasonably fit for habitation. Whilst mismatched units may offend a resident’s sense of aesthetic, they cannot be reasonably considered to interfere with a property’s habitability.
  5. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take reasonable steps to take into account the aesthetics of replacement units in the context of taking a cost effective and timely approach to repairs. In this case, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to obtain matching units but was unable to because the units were no longer being manufactured. The only solution therefore would be to fully replace all the units. This would be an improvement rather than a repair. The kitchen is due to be fully renewed in 2027 as part of the landlord’s programme for renewal. The Ombudsman does not consider it would be reasonable or proportionate to fully replace a kitchen which is currently serviceable due to some colour mismatching units. The Ombudsman notes that the replacement units are not a dramatically different colour to the existing units. The Ombudsman therefore does not find it a failing that the replacement units are not an exact match.
  6. The Ombudsman notes that in the landlord’s stage two complaint response it offered to replace one of the old drawer units so that the colour mismatch was less obvious. The resident did not accept this. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that this was a reasonable offer in the circumstances.
  7. The resident has also raised concerns about the quality of the replacement units as well as the colour. The Ombudsman is not able to make a technical assessment of the quality specifications of the units The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has inspected the replacement units and that no indication of a quality problem was identified. The Ombudsman has no reason to consider that these inspections were not undertaken in good faith.
  8. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has stated that if he had been made aware of the colour mismatch before work was undertaken he would have refused for the work to be done at all. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident is disappointed with the outcome of the work. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied by the landlord’s statement that the replacement had to be undertaken. Therefore, even if the landlord had advised the resident before the replacement this would not have achieved a different outcome.
  9. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has acted in a reasonable and proportionate manner, taking into account the importance of being cost effective when undertaking repairs. The Ombudsman finds that there has not been a failing by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint that a replacement unit installed in the resident’s kitchen does not match the existing units and is of poor quality.

Reasons

  1. The landlord took reasonable steps to obtain matching units but was unable to because the units were no longer being manufactured. The only solution therefore would be to fully replace all the units. The kitchen is due to be fully renewed in 2027 as part of the landlord’s programme for renewal. The Ombudsman does not consider it would be reasonable or proportionate to fully replace a serviceable kitchen on the basis of colour mismatched units.