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

Birmingham City Council (202217239)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217239

Birmingham City Council

6 February 2024

 

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 handling of the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen.
  2. This Service has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. She lives in the 3-bedroom mid terrace house with her 2 children and another relative.
  2. Following the resident’s reports of repair issues with the kitchen units and worktop on 23 September 2022, the landlord’s contractor attended and advised that it was her responsibility to maintain the units as they were not the property of the landlord. Following the contractor’s visit, the resident raised a formal complaint on 26 September 2022. She disputed that the kitchen units were her responsibility as it was not written in her tenancy agreement, and she had not been told this prior to the tenancy starting. She requested that the landlord fit a new kitchen in the property.
  3. In its stage 1 response on 23 January 2023, the landlord apologised for the length of time taken to resolve her complaint. It arranged works to her kitchen, either to repair or replace the units, for the 2 March 2023. It was unable to provide records of when the kitchen was last replaced as the previous tenant did so without seeking permission.
  4. The resident responded on 24 January 2023 and requested that all works for the kitchen be put on hold until it found the records for the kitchen installation.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 25 January 2023, the same day as the complaint was escalated. It confirmed that the kitchen units needed repairing or replacing and that it was its responsibility to do so. It kept the appointment date of 2 March 2023 for works and again said it was unable to confirm when the kitchen was installed as it had no records of this.
  1. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service. She said she was not happy that the landlord was unable to provide historical records of when the kitchen was installed.

Assessment and findings

Kitchen repairs

  1. The resident first reported repair issues with her kitchen to the landlord on 23 September 2022. The date of the contractor visit is not known, however the formal complaint was raised following its visit on 26 September 2022. It is reasonable to assume it attended within 3 days. Its repairs policy does not set out an initial response time, but it responded promptly in the circumstances.
  2. The landlord’s contractor initially advised the resident that the kitchen units did not belong to the landlord and were her responsibility. It investigated internally and found evidence that it had repaired kitchen units in 2013 and 2019. It said that this implied that the kitchen was in place with she moved in and was therefore the landlord’s responsibility. This was correct in line with its repairs policy, which states that if it supplied the kitchen units and work surfaces, or if it has otherwise accepted responsibility for them, it has responsibility for repairs and maintenance.
  3. The landlord is responsible for maintaining its housing stock. It responds to repairs through third party repairs contractors but remains responsible for the timeliness and quality of repairs. It identified that it was responsible for repairs to the kitchen on 28 September 2022 and took no further action until the resident chased for an update to her complaint on 19 October 2022. On 20 October 2022, it began to investigate whether the kitchen was a standard fitting to find out who had responsibility for repairs. This was unnecessary and caused further delays as it had already identified that it was the responsible party.
  4. The landlord arranged an appointment to complete repairs to the kitchen units for 24 November 2022. The resident declined this appointment and requested an inspection of her kitchen rather than the landlord sending its contractor to repair it. This request was reasonable in the circumstances; however, the landlord did not visit until 16 January 2023, leaving the resident waiting for more than 2 months. This was not a reasonable delay and from the evidence provided appears to have added to the frustration felt by the resident.
  5. The landlord continued to investigate whether the kitchen was present in the property when the resident’s tenancy started. An internal email of 30 November 2022 showed that if the kitchen was not removed by its contractor during the void period in January 2013, it was the contractor’s responsibility to maintain. In a further email on 1 December 2022, it said it had a frequent issue with its contractor failing to remove non-standard fittings during void periods and then refusing to complete repairs when faults occurred. It had direct responsibility for arranging repairs to the resident’s kitchen under its own repairs policy and for the actions of its contractor. This was an issue between the landlord and its contractor to be sorted out outside the kitchen works, thus, should not have caused delays in this case.
  6. On 1 December 2022, the landlord raised a further repair for works to the resident’s kitchen units. This was cancelled by its contractor due to the units not being standard fittings. There is no evidence that it addressed this with the contractor at the time. It raised the order again on 3 January 2023 with a target date of 14 February 2023 and a note stating, “DO NOT CANCEL”. It was correct to continue to log the repair works but there is no evidence to explain why it took over a month to log the works again after the cancellation by its contractor. This was not a reasonable delay or in line with its own repairs policy.
  7. The resident repeated her request for the landlord to inspect her kitchen in person on both 5 and 9 January 2023. It said on 9 January 2023 that it was struggling to find any records of when her kitchen was installed but it agreed to visit. In an internal email on the same day, it again stated that if she inherited the kitchen, it would be the responsibility of its contractor to maintain but if she installed it, it would become her responsibility. It was, essentially, going back to communication that had been concluded previously. This was now over 2 months since it first found records that it had completed repairs to her kitchen in 2019 and it offered no explanation about the delays to the resident.
  8. It visited her property on 16 January 2023 to inspect the kitchen and took photographs of several kitchen units with broken or missing doors and drawer fronts, broken shelves inside cupboards and one door with a broken hinge. This could have been discovered much earlier if it had agreed to inspect the kitchen when she initially requested this in November 2022. Its repairs policy states that in cases where an inspection to diagnose the repair is required, an appointment for this inspection shall be given at the time of the call. It would have been appropriate to arrange a further inspection after the first visit by its contractor in September 2022 to fully assess responsibility for the kitchen repairs at the time.
  9. The landlord’s inadequate record keeping inevitably led to delays and incomplete responses to service requests, leading to the resident’s complaint. The impact was then heightened as the lack of information made any substantive complaint response difficult. The resident asked for copies of installation records relating to her kitchen on multiple occasions and it was unable to provide these as it did not hold any since the original installation of a kitchen in 2002. The evidence indicates that the kitchen was not removed or replaced during the 2-week void period in January 2013. Therefore, it was unable to confirm whether the kitchen was replaced by the tenant prior to the resident and as such, could not confirm the age of the kitchen. The resident then refused any works to her kitchen as she was frustrated with the landlord’s inability to provide any documentation.
  10. This Service issued a special report on the landlord in January 2023 which covered the period of this complaint. The report investigated issues with record keeping and repairs. This case displayed many of the same issues identified in the report and the landlord was provided with multiple recommendations on ways to improve the service it was providing in these areas. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to re-visit this special report and consider the recommendations relevant to the poor record keeping in this case.
  11. In conclusion, while the resident has contributed to delays by declining appointments for works to be undertaken, this occurred after failures in the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping. It acknowledged responsibility for the kitchen in September 2022 and did not act upon this information within its own repairs policy timeline of a 30-day target for routine repairs. There were 57 days between this acknowledgement and the first appointment date. It did not act reasonably when considering her request for an in-person inspection and delayed in doing so until January 2023. It failed to use the opportunity of the complaint decision to offer redress for its delays. This Service therefore finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 26 September 2022. It acknowledged the complaint on 27 September 2022 and stated that it would provide a response within 15 working days. While this was in line with its own complaints policy, the Complaint Handling Code issued by this Service covering the period of this complaint states that landlords must reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It did not adhere to either its own policy timeframe or the one set by this Service as part of the Complaint Handling Code. She was left to chase it for an update 6 times between 19 October 2022 and 5 January 2023, this undoubtedly led to further frustration for the resident and was not reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 23 January 2023, 119 working days later and 104 working days outside of its complaints policy timescale. It apologised for the time taken to resolve her complaint and apologised for the difficulties she had and the inconvenience caused to her. It did not offer compensation for the delays and did not have any provision for doing so in its comments, compliments, and complaints policy. The policy stated it would not pay compensation for inconvenience and distress which is not in line with the remedies guidance issued by this Service.
  3. The findings relating to complaint handling in this investigation reflect the findings in a special report by this Service, published in January 2023. The report covered the same period as this investigation and recommendations were made for ways the landlord could improve its complaint handling.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles set out the approach to providing remedies. The three principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. While the landlord apologised, it failed to demonstrate any learning from its failures and did not offer any explanation of how it would prevent similar delays in the future. An order for compensation will be made in the orders and recommendations section of this report in line with the remedies guidance set by this Service.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 in compensation, broken down as follows:
    1. £100 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of kitchen repairs.
    2. £150 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to its complaint handling.
  1. The landlord is ordered to inspect the resident’s kitchen to identify any current repairs required and arrange any follow-up appointments to complete works.
  2. The landlord is ordered to confirm with the resident in writing when the kitchen in her property will be due for full refurbishment if it does not identify this as a requirement during its inspection.
  3. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. Considering the shortcomings found in this investigation, the landlord should consider self-assessing its practices against the knowledge and information management (KIM) spotlight report published by this Service in May 2023, if it has not already done so.
  2. This Service recommends that the landlord re-visits the special report published in January 2023 which found that it had “no framework in place for the record keeping it expects of its staff and contractors” and consider how it is acting on the recommendations made within it.