The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Birmingham City Council (202005389)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005389

Birmingham City Council

12 March 2021


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 concerns:
    1. How the landlord handled repairs to kitchen drawers in the resident’s property.
    2. The landlord’s decision about the kitchen layout in relation to the resident’s request to install a fridge/freezer.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a semi-detached bungalow. The tenancy commenced in February 2019.
  2. On 6 July 2020 the resident called the landlord and requested to raise a formal complaint. The landlord’s notes of the call state that the resident believed that the kitchen in the property had been installed incorrectly, and as a result he had problems opening some cupboards and drawers. The resident also expressed unhappiness that he had been unable to make a complaint about this matter on 19 June 2020, as the landlord’s complaint department was not available due to the Covid-19 lockdown.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 July 2020. It confirmed that it had opened a formal complaint into the matter and that it aimed to provide a response within 15 working days.
  4. The stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 13 July 2020. The landlord confirmed that a repair to a kitchen drawer was completed on 9 July 2020. It also apologised for the delay responding to the complaint and the inconvenience that this had caused him.
  5. On 4 August 2020 the resident called the landlord and requested an escalation of the complaint. The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 August 2020 to confirm that the complaint had been escalated and that it aimed to provide a response by 2 September 2020.
  6. On 23 August 2020 the landlord called the resident to discuss the outstanding issues of the complaint. The landlord’s notes of the call state that, amongst other things, the resident informed said that a drawer “smashes” into the cooker, and that the layout of the kitchen units and worktops had prevented him from installing a fridge/freezer.
  7. An inspection of the kitchen was undertaken by the landlord on 28 August 2020, and on 2 September 2020 the stage two response was sent to the resident. The landlord informed the resident that:
    1. The inspection of the kitchen had found that one drawer could not be opened fully, as the cooker restricted access, but it was not deemed as unusable because the resident was able to open it and had items stored in it.
    2. The cupboard door below the drawer also could not be opened fully, but still allowed full access to the cupboard.
    3. The inspection concluded that the resident had sufficient storage space in the kitchen.
    4. The resident had said during the inspection that he did not want to lose any current storage space, and therefore, the landlord decided “the only viable option for a fridge with freezing facility, without disturbing the kitchen, would be for the fridge to be replaced by a fridge with an ice box under the work top”.
  8. The landlord concluded its response by informing the resident that he had now exhausted its internal complaints procedure and advised him on the steps to take to bring his complaint to this Service should he remain dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

Kitchen drawers

  1. Section A4 of the landlord’s repairs policy document describes how it prioritises its repairs and the three categories it uses. The policy states that it will respond to emergency repairs (“where there is a danger of injury or damage to the property”) within 24 hours, that it will respond to urgent repairs (“protecting the health and safety of the tenant and their family or the security of the property”) within one, three or seven days depending on legal requirements, and that it will respond to routine repairs within 30 days.
  2. On being informed of an issue with a kitchen drawer by the resident when raising a complaint on 6 July 2020, a work order was raised, and the repair was completed on 9 July 2020. This was well within the aimed response time for routine repairs. The resident had initially attempted to raise a complaint on 19 June 2020 but was unable to due to restrictions on the landlord’s service as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. If the resident had been able to raise his complaint at this time, the 9 July 2020 repair would still have been successfully completed within the 30-day window for routine repairs.

Space in kitchen for a fridge/freezer

  1. The resident has described his dissatisfaction with the layout of the kitchen in the property. He highlighted that, due to the layout, he had been unable to install a fridge/freezer. In response to these concerns, the landlord undertook an inspection of the kitchen and corresponded with its maintenance contractor.
  2. Section A10.9 of the landlord’s repairs policy document concerns repairs and improvements to kitchens and bathrooms. This in part states:

“It is vital that kitchen layouts do not impede or restrict safe movement either around the kitchen itself or to other parts of the dwelling or to the rear/front door etc. where appropriate.

The layout shall be such that it does not necessitate or cause there to be trailing flexes etc. from tenant appliances and if this is likely, the layout must be changed or additional outlets specified.

  1. Once the landlord had been notified by the resident of his concerns, it was appropriate for it to arrange an inspection of the kitchen to ensure that it was in compliance with its policies and procedures.
  2. In bringing his complaint to this service, the resident explained that he had a medical need for ice, and therefore required a fridge/freezer. He further stated that a fridge with an ice box, as suggested by the landlord, would not suit his needs. However, the resident does not appear to have clarified this need to the landlord.
  3. The landlord’s inspection concluded the there was sufficient storage space in the kitchen for the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the recommendations of its staff members and contractors when reaching a decision on the state of the kitchen in the property. Based on the information the landlord had at that time, its decision was reasonable.
  4. If the resident has a need for specific equipment for medical needs, and that equipment cannot easily be accommodated in his home, he would need to raise this clearly and specifically with the landlord. The landlord would be expected to assess the need, or arrange for further consideration by appropriate staff, and obtain recommendations. There is no evidence of such action by either the resident or landlord during the period considered in this investigation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
    1. How it handled repairs to kitchen drawers in the resident’s property.
    2. Its decision about the kitchen layout in relation to the resident’s request to install a fridge/freezer.

Reasons

  1. Overall, the landlord has acted appropriately in this matter. On being contacted by the resident, it raised a formal complaint and a work order to repair a kitchen drawer. Both the stage one complaint response and repair were completed within their published response times.
  2. When the resident informed the landlord of his continuing dissatisfaction, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage two and called him to discuss the outstanding issues. As a result of this telephone conversation the landlord arranged an inspection of the kitchen. It then sent a stage two complaint response where it explained in detail the results of the inspection.
  3. The medical reasons for a fridge/freezer, described by the resident to this Service during a telephone conversation on 20 October 2020, were not addressed in the complaint responses as they were not raised by the resident to the landlord during the complaint process.