Westminster City Council (202114928)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114928

Westminster City Council

5 May 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 decision to reschedule the resident’s kitchen renewal.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, and the property is a flat within a block of flats. The resident has been represented by her daughter for much of her complaint with the landlord. For clarity in this report they will be referred to collectively as ‘the resident’.
3. In February 2020 a surveyor attended the resident’s home. He reported to the landlord that her kitchen had several repair issues but was still functional, and suggested the resident be added to the kitchen renewal list. The surveyor said that he advised the resident that her kitchen would be put forward as a ‘nonpriority’ renewal based on the kitchen still being functional, but that she would “probably be contacted…within a year”.
4. On 12 July 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint. She explained that her kitchen was last renewed in 2002 and was in “urgent need of a renewal”. She said her kitchen tiles were falling off, and referred to the kitchen sink edges and counter top as “blown” (lifting). She was concerned that water would leak down to the property below her. The resident explained that a contractor attended her property in November 2019 to reseal the kitchen counter top and edges. However, the contractor concluded that he was unable to complete the repairs because the counter top was in poor condition and would need to be replaced. The resident said her kitchen was surveyed in February 2020, and the surveyor advised her that she would have a kitchen renewal by February 2021. She complained that she had subsequently been told that all works had been delayed and her kitchen would be renewed by next year, January 2022, and that the landlord wanted to do further surveys of the kitchen condition, despite already having done several. She was concerned about the landlord’s intentions with the kitchen, and asked that it investigate the matter and arrange for the kitchen renewal, as she had been waiting over a year.
5. The landlord issued Its stage one complaint response in July 2021. It explained why it had told her further surveys were needed, apologised for the frustration caused to her, and confirmed that the kitchen renewal was expected to start in January 2022, at which time she would be contacted to confirm further details. The landlord explained that its previous surveys of the kitchen did not identify any immediate or urgent health and safety concerns to justify bringing the works forward. 
6. The resident asked to escalate her complaint in late July 2021. She repeated her concerns about the condition of the kitchen, the multiple surveys, and the delay of the renewal to 2022. The landlord issued its final complaint response in September 2021. It recalled the events leading up to the resident’s complaint and apologised that it “provided inconsistent advice regarding the date that the kitchen [would] be replaced”. The landlord explained that it carried out kitchen replacements as planned work under its major works programme. It said that all projects within the major works programme were subject to review, and that it had had to re-prioritise work to ensure it addressed fire prevention works across its properties. It explained how the resident could contact this Service if she was dissatisfied with its response.
7. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she was dissatisfied with the length of time it was taking for her kitchen renewal. She said she was disappointed because the landlord kept delaying the renewal date and still had not provided her with an exact date. The resident advised that the landlord had called to arrange to carry out minor repairs but she believed it was trying to prolong the kitchen renewal.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

8. The landlord has not provided any policies or procedures which set out the frequency of its home renewal or refurbishment programs. Nonetheless, the ‘Decent Home Standard’ sets out the required standards of a property in order for it to be considered decent for living. One of the criteria for a property to be considered a decent home is that the kitchen should be “reasonably modern” which is taken to be “20 years or less”. Accordingly, 20 years is taken in this investigation as a very broad guideline as to how often kitchen refurbishment would ideally be undertaken. It should be noted that a property would need to fail multiple criteria before it was considered not to be decent, and that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether a home is decent or not.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concern about the rescheduling of her kitchen renewal

9. The resident raised concern over the landlord’s decision to reschedule her kitchen renewal from 2020 to 2022. She said that her kitchen was last refurbished in 2002 (i.e. less than 20 years at the time of the complaint), and she believed that it was due an urgent renewal, as the kitchen counter top was lifting, and the tiles were falling off. The surveyor’s report in 2020 showed that he had advised the resident that her kitchen would be put forward as a ‘nonpriority’ renewal based on the kitchen still being functional, and that she would “probably” be contacted regarding the replacement within a year. Nothing in the evidence provided for this investigation indicates that any more definite or specific assurance was given about when the kitchen would be renewed.
10. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that all the projects (including kitchen renewals) within its major works programme were subject to review and that it had to re-prioritise work to ensure it addressed fire prevention works across the properties. Given that no issues of health and safety had been identified with the kitchen, and that fire safety issues by their nature constitute significant health and safety challenges, the landlord’s explanation about its properties was reasonable.
11. It was reasonable for the landlord to plan additional surveys of the kitchen in 2021 and 2022. As the previous one had been at the start of 2020, and could no longer be considered up to date.
12. While it appears that communication by the landlord to the resident about its intentions with the renewal was not frequent and possibly inconsistent, there is no evidence that the landlord provided a definitive assurance that the kitchen would be renewed in 2021. The kitchen was still within what could be described as a reasonable renewal timeframe i.e. 20 years, and the landlord clearly explained why the renewal had been rescheduled for 2022.

Determination

13. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Recommendations

14. If it has not already done so, the landlord should consider writing to the resident as a priority, to clearly explain when and how it intends to complete the resident’s kitchen renewal in 2022.