Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (202418280)

Decision
Case ID	202418280
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	27 January 2026

Background

1. The resident lives with her daughter and adult son in a semi-detached house. All 3 members of the household have additional needs, which the landlord is aware of. The resident asked the landlord for a new kitchen, installation of an internal door between the kitchen and hallway and a wider external door, citing safety concerns. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for:
   1. Kitchen renewal and repairs.
   2. An internal door.
   3. A wider external door.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaints management.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for kitchen renewal and repairs.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an internal door.
6. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a wider external door.
7. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaints management.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. 

Summary of reasons

8. The landlord knew of potentially serious defects to the kitchen, failed to investigate them, and gave conflicting information. It did not consider the vulnerabilities of the household and failed to manage risks appropriately.
9. The landlord failed to investigate the reported hazard, did not consider its position considering the household’s additional needs, and failed to apply any interim risk management.
10. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging a survey of the door to assess next steps. It subsequently inspected the rear door and agreed to a suitable adjustment.
11. The landlord failed to address all issues raised at stage 1, did not investigate or assess the resident’s reported safety concerns, did not provide policy‑based explanations, and at stage 2 did not remedy these omissions or demonstrate reasonable enquiries or learning.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 25 February 2026
2	Inspection Order The landlord must arrange and complete a full inspection of the kitchen, including: The condition of the ceiling. The condition of the units. The kitchen layout and space constraints. Any hazards arising from the absence of the internal door, and the external rear door layout. The inspection must assess whether any immediate health and safety risks exist and set out any urgent actions required. The landlord must provide a copy of the inspection report and findings to the resident and this Service.	No later than 25 February 2026
3	Repair Action Plan Following the inspection, the landlord must provide the resident with an action plan that: Identifies required repairs. Provides timescales for works the landlord will complete. Confirms any interim safety measures required.	No later than 11 March 2026
4	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £450 made up as follows: £200 for the failure to investigate the reported disrepair to the kitchen, including the damaged ceiling, units, and layout concerns, and for not assessing health and safety risks in a timely way. £150 for the failure to consider the household’s additional needs when managing repair requests and safety concerns. £100 for poor complaint handling, including the failure to address all issues raised, lack of reasonable enquiries, and missed opportunities to resolve concerns at both stages of the process. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 25 February 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord establish whether its previously agreed adjustment to the rear door (reversing to open outward and addressing rot) has been completed. If not, it is recommended that it schedule and complete the external door works.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 June 2024	The resident emailed the landlord with her stage 1 complaint. She complained: The kitchen, which she had installed 15 years prior, was in a poor state of repair due to a flood which had ruined the units and affected the kitchen ceiling. The kitchen space was too small and not fit for purpose. There was no internal door between the kitchen and the hallway, which was a fire risk. Exiting the property through the back door was a fire hazard because it was too narrow. The landlord had refused to do works to the kitchen because she had installed it herself. Although she had been advised the kitchen was due for renewal in the landlord’s 2024-2025 house improvement programme, this was not good enough. She asked the landlord to expand the kitchen into a back room to improve the conditions.
7 June 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
19 June 2024	The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint. It said: The kitchen was on the replacement programme for the 2024-2025 financial year, but it had no contractor to deliver the works until at least April 2025. It apologised for the delay. It would carry out any temporary repairs needed to the kitchen in the meantime. The resident should contact its repairs service to report any repairs.
19 June 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She did not provide further reasons for the escalation request.
24 June 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request.
10 July 2024	The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It said: It did not currently have a contractor to undertake kitchen renewal works. It would not knock through or relocate the kitchen to another room. The resident could do this at her own expense but would require written permission from the landlord. It had checked its repair records and could not find any record of it removing the internal door between the kitchen and the hallway. It said it assumed the resident removed the door when she installed the kitchen. The replacement of internal doors is a tenant responsibility. It would arrange a survey of the external door.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted this Service because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for kitchen renewal and repairs
Finding	Maladministration

12. The landlord’s “Customer’s Guide to Dudley Council’s Repairs Responsibility” states it replaces kitchens as part of a planned investment programme. Until the item is due for replacement the landlord would maintain the area, where it has a responsibility.
13. The Tenant Handbook states the tenant is responsible for repairing and maintaining fixtures and fittings installed by the tenant at the property.
14. The Decent Homes Standard says a property meets the standard if it has facilities and services that are reasonably modern and functional. A home does not meet this standard if the kitchen is more than 20 years old, or if the kitchen does not provide adequate space and a practical layout.
15. The Equality Act 2010 requires public bodies, including social landlords, to have due regard to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity, and fostering good relations. Where a disabled tenant (or their representative) requests an adjustment, the landlord must consider the request and take reasonable steps to remove or reduce any substantial disadvantage. Factors relevant to determining reasonableness include practicality, cost, disruption, effectiveness, and the resources available.
16. The resident informed this Service that her adult son has a visual impairment and her daughter has significant neurodiversity‑related needs, requiring attendance at a specialist school some distance from home. The resident also reports mobility‑related needs. The landlord’s records confirm that the household has additional support requirements.
17. In her stage 1 complaint, the resident reported that the kitchen had deteriorated following a flood. This Service has not seen evidence of when the flood occurred or of any earlier notification to the landlord prior to the complaint. The resident stated that the cupboards were deteriorating and that the ceiling “is ready to cave in.” She also described difficulties using the kitchen safely, explaining that the limited space caused household members to catch their arms on hot pans and that the kitchen was too small for more than one person to use safely. She stated that the kitchen needed to be expanded into a back room so that more than 1 person could use the kitchen at the same time.
18. The landlord’s response at stage 1 confirmed that the kitchen was due for renewal within the financial year and advised the resident to report interim repairs to its repairs service. There is no evidence seen that the landlord arranged an inspection of the kitchen ceiling, cupboards, or overall layout. This was inappropriate, as the landlord was aware of reported damage but did not take reasonable steps to assess the risk or determine whether any immediate repairs were required to keep the kitchen safe and usable.
19. The evidence shows that the landlord gave inconsistent and unclear information about who was responsible for repairing the kitchen. While the Tenant Handbook says residents must maintain any fixtures or fittings, they have installed themselves, the stage 1 complaint response stated that the landlord would carry out temporary repairs. This inconsistency could reasonably cause confusion for the resident about her repair responsibilities and may have delayed necessary works.
20. The landlord did not address the safety concerns the resident raised about the kitchen. This was inappropriate given the landlord’s knowledge of the household’s additional needs, particularly the son’s visual impairment. In these circumstances, the landlord should have considered whether the reported layout, space constraints and damaged fittings created an increased risk for the household and whether any reasonable adjustments or interim safety measures were required.
21. The landlord should also have considered whether alternative solutions to the kitchen layout and space were possible, such as an adaptation funded through a Disabled Facilities Grant, to provide a long‑term, effective solution to the household’s needs. There is no evidence seen that the landlord explored this possibility with the resident.
22. The Decent Homes Standard states that kitchens must be safe, functional, and appropriately laid out. There is no evidence seen that the landlord assessed the reported concerns within this framework.
23. The resident reported long‑standing safety risks, lack of space, and deterioration in the kitchen after a flood. She said the layout made it unsafe for more than one person to use and caused daily tasks to take longer. She also explained that the limited space reduced her son’s independence and her daughter’s ability to develop independent living skills. Despite seeking help for several years, she felt the landlord took no action. The landlord missed opportunities to inspect, clarify responsibilities, or assess safety, causing ongoing distress and time and trouble.
24. Taken together, the landlord’s failure to investigate the reported disrepair, its inconsistent information about repair responsibilities, and its lack of consideration of the household’s additional needs and any reasonable adjustments amount to maladministration in its handling of the resident’s request for kitchen renewal and repairs.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an internal door
Finding	Maladministration

25. The landlord’s Repairs Responsibility guide states that the landlord is responsible for maintenance and repairs of external doors and internal fire doors, where required for compliance. It says residents are responsible for all other internal doors. The guide also confirms that the landlord may assist vulnerable residents with minor health and safety repairs that would normally fall to them and may adjust service standards where delays could place them at risk.
26. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies to the shared areas of buildings with multiple homes. It does not apply to standalone single homes and therefore does not require internal fire doors in a property of this type.
27. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, a home must be free from problems that create hazards to the health or safety of occupants. Fire is one of the hazards assessed. The guidance does not require the installation of internal fire doors in homes, but it recognises that suitable internal doors can reduce risk.
28. The resident told the landlord that the Fire Service had visited and advised her that an internal door was needed between the kitchen and hallway because the absence of a door posed a fire hazard. This Service has not seen evidence of a formal recommendation, order, or written report from the Fire Service confirming this. In the absence of such evidence, the landlord should have considered the concern raised, clarified the basis for the resident’s understanding, and determined whether any safety assessment or other action was needed to address the reported risk.
29. The landlord’s response to the request for an internal door was inadequate and lacked empathy. It simply said that replacement of internal doors was a resident’s responsibility. There is no evidence seen that the landlord fully considered what it could do, given its knowledge of the additional needs of the family. This was not appropriate.
30. The landlord noted internally that the missing door could be addressed as part of the planned kitchen renewal. However, the renewal was not scheduled until at least April 2025 and no contractor was in place.
31. The landlord did not carry out an interim risk assessment or identify temporary measures to reduce the potential hazard. As a result, the resident continued to live with an unresolved safety concern, which likely caused ongoing worry, inconvenience, and additional time and trouble in seeking a response. The absence of timely assessment also meant the landlord did not identify whether the household’s known additional needs required reasonable adjustments to manage the situation safely.
32. The failure to investigate the reported hazard or consider putting in place interim safety measures in the context of the household’s additional needs therefore amounts to maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a wider external door
Finding	No maladministration

33. The landlord’s Repairs Responsibility guide sets out that the landlord is responsible for maintenance and repairs of external doors.
34. In response to the resident’s report that the back door was too narrow to exit safely, the landlord arranged a survey. This was an appropriate response. The evidence shows that after the complaints process was completed, the landlord inspected the door, found it was rotten, and agreed to reverse it to create more space. This was a reasonable and practical decision.
35. The landlord’s evidence shows that it made repeated attempts to access the property after the internal complaints procedure had completed, so that it could inspect the kitchen, replace the external door and conduct a survey. The resident has told this Service that she was frequently away from the property all day, as she had to take her daughter to school some distance away, which limited her availability for appointments.
36. Based on the evidence, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a wider external door. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the concern, arranged appropriate inspections, and attempted to progress the works within the constraints of access being available.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

37. The landlord’s Complaints Policy is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code). It states it will acknowledge, define, and log a complaint within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 at stage 2.
38. At stage 1, the resident raised concerns about the kitchen, missing internal door, and external door, all linked to safety risks. Although the landlord responded within policy timeframes, it addressed only the kitchen renewal programme and did not consider the other issues or the safety concerns relating to a damaged ceiling and missing internal door. It did not refer to any inspections, repair history, or enquiries, nor did it explain whether interim measures had been considered.
39. At stage 2, while the landlord addressed more complaint issues, it did not remedy the central shortcoming, which was the condition, safety, and layout of the kitchen. There is no evidence that it investigated the resident’s safety concerns or considered whether further enquiries or inspections were required. As a result, the stage 2 response did not provide a full review of the outstanding matters, as expected at escalation.
40. In summary, across both complaint stages, the landlord did not demonstrate learning or reflection on how the complaint had been handled. The combined effect of these failings was that the landlord did not provide a fair, thorough, or resident‑focused complaint response, and its handling did not comply with the Complaint Handling Code. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Learning

41. Reports of hazards should trigger timely checks, risk assessments, and clear communication with residents about any immediate steps needed to keep the home safe.
42. The household had known additional needs, including a visual impairment, and significant neurodiversity-related needs, but these were not considered when assessing the risks or the landlord’s obligations. Vulnerabilities should be consistently considered in repairs and complaint handling, with reasonable adjustments or enhanced assessments applied where required.
43. The landlord did not investigate all the issues raised, provide evidence of reasonable enquiries, or demonstrate learning. Complaint responses should address each point raised, reference relevant policies, and identify any learning. A thorough stage 2 review is essential to resolve outstanding matters.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

44. The landlord did not maintain adequate repair records or evidence of decision‑making. Key information, such as whether inspections took place or repairs were completed, was missing. Improved record keeping would support effective repairs management, continuity of service, and clearer responses to residents.

Communication

45. The landlord gave conflicting information to the resident about responsibility for the kitchen repairs. It also did not respond to all issues raised by the resident, particularly at stage 1. Clear, consistent communication, supported by policy references and accurate records, helps residents understand their responsibilities and reduces avoidable complaints.