Birmingham City Council (202125140)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125140

Birmingham City Council

18 August 2023

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 response to the resident’s reports concerning the condition of the kitchen at the property.
   2. The landlord’s response to resident’s request for the kitchen at the property to be replaced.
   3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident is the secure tenant of a three-bedroom terrace house under a tenancy agreement which commenced on 1 October 2007. In 2021 she contacted the landlord asking for the kitchen cupboards in the property to be replaced. The landlord declined the request saying that it only offered a limited repairs service and if the cupboard was repairable, it would not be replaced.
3. On 16 April 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to report the kitchen cupboards needing repair. The target repair date was 1 June 2021. However, the landlord had no record of work carried out between 14 May to 9 July 2021.
4. On 9 July 2021 the resident raised a recall with the landlord. The original target date was to complete the work by 16 August 2021. The appointment was moved from 13 August to 23 September 2021.
5. On 23 September 2021 the landlord attended the property and rehung 6 kitchen cupboard doors.
6. On 19 October 2021 the resident again contacted the landlord about the kitchen cupboard repair. The target date for the repair was 30 November 2021.
7. On 8 December 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord again saying that the kitchen cabinets were damaged and old. The resident maintained that they should be replaced due to them containing holes and gaps and she wanted to know whether the kitchen could be renewed. The landlord  treated the resident’s phone call as a complaint.
8. On 17 December 2021 the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response to her complaint. In its response the landlord explained that the resident’s complaint was that the repair did not meet the quality and standard expected. The landlord said that the kitchen cupboard issue appeared to be a reoccurring one, for which it apologised. It also apologised for the delay in attending to the most recent repair and explained that a new repair had been arranged for 21 December 2021.
9. On 21 December the landlord attend the property and recorded the repairs as completed.
10. On 22 December 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to say that the repair carried out the previous day was not acceptable. The landlord had just put back on the same cupboard door. The landlord raised this as a stage 2 complaint. 
11. On 11 February 2022 the landlord responded to the complaint explaining that its contractor had rehung rather than replace the kitchen cupboard due to only cosmetic damage. It again explained that it could only offer limited repairs in line with the conditions of tenancy and if something was repairable, it would not be replaced.
12. In response to the complaint the landlord arranged to inspect the kitchen and concluded that it was fit for purpose. 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.
13. During the course of this investigation the landlord has informed this service that during March 2023 it inspected the property and raised various repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

14. For the sake of completeness, the Ombudsman notes that in July 2022 the resident raised further issues with the kitchen cooker. There is no evidence that the resident raised this issue with the landlord as part of the formal complaint. Paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. This issue has therefore not been considered as part of this investigation.
15. The resident has said that her daughter and husband were injured by the falling of kitchen cupboards. It is beyond the expertise of this service to determine if there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or lack of actions and any injuries experienced by the resident’s family members. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts and the resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning the condition of the kitchen at the property

16. Under the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, it is obliged to ensure that appointments for non-emergency repairs are booked at the resident’s convenience within 28 calendar days. It is also required to monitor whether appointments are being made and kept, and that repairs are completed within the designated timeframes.
17. The landlord failed in its obligation to complete repairs to the resident’s kitchen cupboards within the repairs and maintenance policy’s timeframes. The landlord carried out the repair reported on 16 April 2021 on 23 September 2021, 160 calendar days later and 132 calendar days later than the 28 day timeframe set out in the landlord’s policy.
18. The resident reported a further repair required to the kitchen cupboard doors on 19 October 2021. The landlord completed this repair on 21 December 2021, 63 calendar days later and 35 calendar days later than the 28 day timeframe set out in the landlord’s policy.
19. The landlord’s significant delays in carrying out the reported repairs amounted to maladministration in its response to the resident’s reports concerning the condition of the kitchen at the property.

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

20. This service has not seen any of the landlord’s policies that indicate when kitchens will be renewed. Whilst there is evidence that the kitchen was refurbished in October 1995, the landlord has not explained the lifespan of a kitchen.
21. 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 its suggested lifespan. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to use this as a determining factor in whether the resident should have been due a replacement.
22. 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 kitchen was also dependent on the condition and the landlord’s discretion.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.

The landlord’s complaint handling

26. Under the landlord’s complaints policy the response time for a stage 2 complaint is 20 working days.
27. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 December 2021 and the landlord issued its stage 2 response  to the complaint on 11 February 2022, 34 working days later. This was 14 working days later than the 20 working day timeframe set out in the landlord’s policy.
28. There was therefore service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was  maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports concerning the condition of the kitchen at the property.
30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for the kitchen at the property to be replaced.
31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders

32. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £300. This is made up as follows:
    1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings in its response to her reports concerning the condition of the kitchen at the property.
    2. £50 for its complaint handling failings.
33. The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not used to offset any money that the resident might owe to the landlord.
34. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with this order to this service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

35. The landlord should provide the resident with an ‘earliest date’ in the future when it will reinspect/reconsider the fitness of the kitchen.