Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council (202103294)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103294

Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council

8 October 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 the landlord’s decision not to renew the resident’s kitchen.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

2. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 10 August 2020. The resident’s kitchen was installed in 2010 and so is currently 11 years of age.
3. The Government’s ‘Decent Homes Standards’ sets out minimum standards for decent living for properties in the UK.  In respect of kitchens, section 4, paragraph 4.4 states that “Dwellings which fail to meet [the decent homes] criterion are those which lack three or more of the following…” of which “a reasonably modern kitchen (20 years old or less)” is one of those criterion.  Having a kitchen older than 20 years alone, would not necessarily render the property not decent to live in; the guidance specifically states “three or more” criterion.
4. The landlord’s repairs policy does not specify target timeframes for responsive repairs.  
5. The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure.  When a complaint is received, the landlord will investigate and respond within 10 working days.  Where a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome, the matter will be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure and it will immediately write to the complainant advising this.  There is no timescale associated with this stage.

Summary of events

6. From around 15 September 2020, the resident began contacting the landlord to request a new kitchen be installed.  The resident contacted the landlord on a number of occasions and was advised that the kitchen was not due to be replaced until 2030.
7. On 7 October 2020, the landlord carried out an inspection of the kitchen and determined that it did not need replacing.  The landlord confirmed the outcome of inspection in writing that day, in its letter, advising that some repairs were noted and for the resident to get in touch to arrange these.  It also noted the resident’s mention of replacing the kitchen himself, which could be an option, although he would have to request permission to do so.
8. The resident did not seek to have the repairs carried out and continued to contact the landlord to ask for a new kitchen to be installed, citing various problems with the one he had, including the space between cupboards being too narrow to fit a cooker. Communication between the resident and landlord continued and a second inspection was carried out on 9 December 2020.
9. Following the inspection, the landlord again wrote to the resident on the same day, advising that there was no requirement for the kitchen to be replaced.  It noted that repairs were required to the worktops and plinths and advised the resident to contact the landlord to arrange this. The landlord said again that an alternative option would be for the resident to request permission to replace the kitchen himself.
10. The resident continued to contact the landlord about a new kitchen. On 11 January 2021 following his most recent request, the landlord wrote to the resident reiterating that a new kitchen was not required, but noted that repairs were outstanding (to the worktops, sink and taps and kickboards and that the tiles needed checking). It noted too that it had inspected the units closest to the cooker, due to the resident being concerned about the size of the space, and had found this to be appropriate. It had offered additional cupboards which had been declined. In response to the resident’s reference to grime in the property it advised that the property was fully cleaned before he moved into it.
11. The resident responded the following day, disagreeing with the landlord’s explanations and decisions.  The landlord told him it was unable to add anything further and so the resident would need to raise the matter as a complaint.
12. On 14 January 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord to express his dissatisfaction that it had not provided him with a new kitchen. He explained problems he had with the kitchen, including smells and grime he said he had to clean off when he moved in. He articulated other concerns with the kitchen, including the wood at the back of the cupboards missing, the kickboards falling down, the sink being bowed and having to use old wood to hold up one of the cupboards.  The resident wanted a new kitchen installed as resolution to his complaint.
13. On 27 January 2021 the landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint. It did not uphold the complaint, explaining that the kitchen was renewed in 2010 and was due for replacement in 2030. The landlord further explained that an inspection of the kitchen prior to the resident moving in, on 22 March 2019, deemed it to be in a “fair” condition. It was again inspected on 16 July 2020 as part of the void process before he moved in, and was not found to be in need of renewal at that time.
14. The landlord noted that following requests from the resident for a new kitchen, further inspections were undertaken on 7 October and 9 December 2020, neither of which gave rise to a recommendation for replacement. 
15. The landlord noted that repairs were required to:
    1. Replace all worktops to include new sink and taps
    2. Refix plinths
    3. Replace any tiles broken during the replacement of the worktops.
16. It recommended the resident contact it to arrange the repairs, advising that these would resolve any issues with the kitchen.
17. On 26 and 28 January 2021, the resident requested escalation of his complaint, stating that he felt discriminated against.
18. On 11 February 2021 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure. It did not uphold the complaint, reiterating that upon inspection it had found the kitchen to be “perfectly adequate”. 
19. The landlord again acknowledged that repairs were outstanding and advised the resident to contact its ‘Repairs Team’ to schedule these works.
20. The resident refused to have the works to the kitchen undertaken and continued to ask the landlord to install a new kitchen.

Assessment and findings

21. Upon notification of issues with the kitchen, the landlord was obliged to inspect the property and to carry out any repairs or works within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and repairs policy and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable period of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances. 
22. The resident began requesting a new kitchen shortly after his tenancy began.  The landlord, having consulted its records, found that the kitchen was not due for replacement as part of its cyclical works program. It carried out an inspection of the kitchen nonetheless, to identify any repair issues.
23. The landlord’s actions were appropriate because despite the kitchen not being eligible for replacement and having recently inspected the property prior to the resident moving in, repairs could have since become necessary.  Although the resident was not citing any specific repair issues and was only requesting a new kitchen, the landlord took a reasonable and pragmatic response, by attending first to inspect the situation, in order to make a fresh assessment and determine any next steps.
24. The landlord’s repairs policy does not set out a timeframe for repair, nor does the law explicitly state one.  However, the landlord attended the property to inspect one month after the resident began asking for a new kitchen.  Taking the circumstances into account, this was a reasonable period of time and is in accordance with general practice for non-urgent repair matters.
25. Whilst the landlord did not identify the need for a new kitchen at this point, it did identify some repairs and made an offer of additional cupboards.  The offer of cupboards was reasonable, as it was not something the landlord was obliged to do but in doing so, it demonstrated that it wanted to resolve the issues and put things right for the resident. 
26. Tenants are usually obliged to allow access for a landlord to carry out repairs. The resident did not do so, declining both the repairs and the landlord’s offer of additional cupboards. Despite its original explanation that a new kitchen was not required, the landlord again inspected the kitchen two later, arriving at the same conclusion. Again, the landlord’s actions were reasonable insofar as it was not obliged to carry out a further inspection where there had been no additional issues raised. 
27. In addition to a general inspection as to need for renewal, the landlord addressed the specific issues raised by the resident including the space between cupboards for a cooker, and could still find nothing wrong. At both of inspections the landlord wrote to the resident the same day with the outcome and explanation, which showed good communication and efforts to manage his expectations.
28. It is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the opinions of its specialist contractors. The landlord inspected the property on two occasions while the resident was present, as well as one occasion prior to the start of his tenancy. Each inspection confirmed there were not grounds to replace the kitchen. 
29. While understandably disappointing for the resident, in the circumstances of his tenancy and the state of the property, the landlord was not obliged to replace the kitchen; only to repair it.
30. The landlord encouraged the resident to allow it to carry the repairs out and it advised that the resident could request permission to renew the kitchen himself which was accurate and transparent.

Determination (decision)

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

Reasons

32. There was no maladministration insofar as the landlord was not obliged to renew the kitchen; the kitchen was not on the cyclical works program and was inspected multiple times and found to be in a satisfactory condition.