Sanctuary Housing Association (202100264)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100264

Sanctuary Housing Association

1 August 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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the condition of the kitchen at her property.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the kitchen to be replaced.

Background

2. The resident is the secure tenant of a three bedroomed house under a tenancy agreement which commenced in June 2011. In 2016 and again in 2018 she contacted the landlord asking for the kitchen in the property to be replaced. The landlord declined the request stating the property was not due for refurbishment.
3. In October/November 2019 the resident contacted the landlord again setting out various outstanding maintenance issues at the property, including some within the kitchen. The resident’s email refers to this as being a “complaint”, but the landlord noted no reports of repairs had been made in the preceding six months and treated the communication as an initial report, scheduling appointments for the works.
4. In November 2020 the resident contacted the landlord again. She explained that when the works had been carried out in November 2019, the landlord’s contractor had advised a new kitchen was going to be installed, but there was a 50 week wait. By her calculation it was now due, and she had been expecting to hear from the landlord about it.
5. On 17 November 2020 the resident lodged a formal complaint with the landlord about its failure to replace the kitchen. She stated it was in a poor state, with drawers missing, chips in the worktops, and rusty cupboard hinges. She explained that her property was situated by a development of much newer properties, and she anticipated they were equipped with better facilities, but she was paying the same rent as their occupants. She considered this was unfair.
6. In response to the complaint the landlord arranged to inspect the kitchen and concluded it was fit for purpose although it identified and rectified some maintenance issues because of that visit. The landlord declined to replace the kitchen and confirmed this in its complaint response. The resident remains dissatisfied with that decision and has advised this service that her preferred outcome to this complaint is for the kitchen to be replaced.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the condition of the kitchen at her property.

7. There is no dispute that the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the kitchen at the property. Some issues were dealt with by its contractor in November 2019. There is no evidence that the resident questioned the effectiveness of the workmanship.
8. However, in November 2020 the resident stated that “my kitchen is mismatched in colour, has rusty hinges, sink is coming away and chunks out of worktops”. It appears to this Service that this was the first time that the resident brought these repair issues to the landlord’s attention. The resident’s complaint subsequently acted as a report of these outstanding maintenance issues. It is noted that the landlord acknowledged the situation the following day and arranged an inspection which took place on 24 November 2020 when works were identified, and these were put in hand by the landlord on 2 December 2020.
9. The landlord’s “Repairs and Maintenance – Group Procedure” states that it aims to complete all non-emergency (appointed) repairs within 28 days.  However, it does not appear that in this case, the landlord was able to honour this. Records show that the appointment initially made for 4 February 2021 had to be rescheduled for 25 February 2021, causing the repair to occur outside of the prescribed timescale. Still, this has not been deemed a failure as evidence demonstrates that the landlord’s service was being affected by COVID-19 restrictions. It is noted that it still remained in contact with the resident during this time and that repairs were later completed during its attendance on 25 February 2021.
10. Moreover, on 3 March 2021 where the resident asserted that the cupboard hinges were rusty, the units were bowing, and the kitchen drawers were mismatched, the landlord responded reasonably. Although it does not appear that the resident requested that these issues be looked at, but rather, referred to them to aid her argument for a replacement kitchen, the landlord offered to replace the hinges and any bowing shelves on 1 April 2021 (but not any cupboards). This was despite its operative being unable to witness the bowing cupboards during its own inspection.
11. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s response was therefore adequate. It acted reasonably in its response to reports from the resident about the condition of the kitchen. Once the issues had been identified, there was a two-month delay in dealing with the repairs but there was also good reason for this and the resident was kept informed. The landlord has shown itself open to carrying out further maintenance, even where it’s contractor has not considered there to be a problem. It has responded to the resident’s concerns.
12. Finally, for the sake of completeness, the Ombudsman notes that on 26 March 2021 the resident raised further issues with the kitchen, not included in her complaint, namely that there was a bit of floor missing by the back door, the ceiling was flaking, and the boiler was leaking.
13. Given these additional issues were not raised in the complaint they will not be considered further here. This is because any complaint about the handling of these items must progress through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure before being considered by the Ombudsman.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the kitchen to be replaced.

14. The landlord’s “Capital Reinvestment – Group Policy” states that its aim is to maintain its “stock” (properties) in good condition and to a decent standard. It does not set out any mechanism for its staff to assess properties to this standard.
15. The landlord has assessed the kitchen against a standard of ‘fitness for purpose’, namely, that the kitchen is capable of being used for the activities typically carried out in a kitchen. The Ombudsman cannot comment on the accuracy of its assessment as it is for the landlord to consider in line with its own standard, but can see that the landlord satisfied for itself that the kitchen was still in a reasonable condition.
16. Noting that kitchen installations are likely to deteriorate over a prolonged period, the landlord did explain that generally, its kitchens had a lifespan of 25 – 30 years.
17. While it is the resident’s view that the kitchen is old and updating is overdue, this Service has been unable to confirm that the kitchen had been in place for a longer period than the suggested lifespan. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to use this as a determining factor in whether the resident should have been due a replacement.
18. It is also noted that while its lifespan would be an indicator of whether a new kitchen may be due, the decision to offer a replacement was also dependent on the condition and the landlord’s discretion.
19. Although the resident’s assertion that a new kitchen had been promised to her in November 2019 has been noted, as the landlord highlighted, no evidence has been identified of this. It would therefore be unfair to criticise the landlord for not honouring this.
20. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord explained that there were no present plans to replace the kitchen. It was fair to share this information with the resident to avoid any misunderstanding. It might have been reasonable, however, for the landlord to have at least indicated when in the future the kitchen would likely be considered for replacement. This Service can see that the resident did press the landlord on this point, but it was unable or unwilling to commit itself.
21. Whilst the Ombudsman accepts that the landlord cannot predict exactly when the kitchen will cease to be fit for purpose, it is important that the issue is not overlooked in the future. A recommendation has therefore been made that the landlord provide the resident with an ‘earliest date’ in the future when it will re–inspect/ reconsider the fitness of the kitchen so that she can prompt it at that time.
22. Finally, the landlord has also declined to discuss the condition of other properties in the vicinity of the resident’s property and states that any decision will be made on a case-by-case basis. This was not inappropriate. This Service cannot see that the landlord would have been required to provide the resident with a replacement on the basis of the condition of surrounding properties.
23. This Service has therefore been unable to find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to provide the resident with a kitchen replacement. The evidence seen indicates that the landlord’s communication was consistent and clear, and there is no evidence that the kitchen was not fit for purpose.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports concerning the condition of the kitchen at her property.
    2. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for the kitchen to be replaced.

Recommendations

25. The landlord should provide the resident with an ‘earliest date’ in the future when it will reinspect/reconsider the fitness of the kitchen, so that she can instigate it at the relevant time.