Birmingham City Council (202343642)

Decision
Case ID	202343642
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Birmingham City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	20 March 2026

Background

The resident raised concerns about repairs to her kitchen and the number of fittings it had in it. The landlord completed repairs to the kitchen. However, the resident remained unhappy and raised her complaint as she felt the kitchen was a hazard.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

There is no record that the landlord confirmed that there were no hazards present in the resident’s kitchen. Its communication with her was poor. The remedy the landlord’s complaint response offered was not adequate for the distress and inconvenience caused. The resident has told us that the issue remains unresolved.
There were delays in the landlord responding at both stages of its complaints process. While it apologised for these, it did not offer her a remedy for the frustration caused due to the resident chasing it for responses.

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 confirms if the resident’s kitchen is to be replaced as part of its “update scheme.” It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 17 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 compensation made up as follows: £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.	No later than 17 April 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of her kitchen. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. A suitably qualified person should do the inspection. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure the surveyor: Inspects the kitchen to ensure it is free from hazards and is safe for the resident to use. The survey report must set out: Whether the kitchen has adequate electrical sockets, ventilation and provisions for storage, preparation, and cooking of food. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issues if the landlord is responsible. The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 17 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 October 2022	The resident raised her complaint with the landlord. She said her kitchen was a safety hazard and the units were falling apart.
19 December 2022	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It said: It was sorry for the delay in it responding. There were delays in it completing kitchen repairs, due to staff sickness and its engineers responding to emergency jobs. It coordinated repair work beyond normal working hours to try and complete the works as soon as was possible. It had been informed that all repair works were now completed.
24 January 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said it had not completed all its repair works to the kitchen and was considering seeking legal advice about the issue.
17 April 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It said: It was sorry for its delayed response and that she had to escalate the issue to the Ombudsman. It acknowledged there was service failure in its complaint handling. It had completed some repairs following its stage 1 response. However, it appreciated her concerns about the functionality of the kitchen. It would arrange to inspect the kitchen to see if it needed to complete further repair works. It would monitor this and keep her informed of the progress. The outcome of her complaint remained justified due to its failures.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us. She said: A surveyor of the landlord had told her that the kitchen was dated and unsafe. A stock condition survey showed the kitchen had not been updated since the 1980’s. Its design meant there was no room for white goods. The landlord had not updated her since its visit in May 2024. It had said it would update the kitchen as a priority. There had been leaks and disrepair issues that had caused damage to the floor, which left her feeling depressed.

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	Kitchen repairs
Finding	Service failure

Landlords must assess property conditions using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). While HHSRS does not set minimum standards, it focuses on identifying and minimising potential health hazards. This includes electrical and food safety hazards. Landlords should be aware of their responsibilities under HHSRS and take appropriate action when hazards are identified.
The resident reported a leak in her kitchen on 27 June 2022. The landlord attended an emergency repair job on the same day. It inspected the flooring and found it needed to replace a stop tap. It returned to her property on 11 August 2022 to remove the flooring and asked the resident to contact it when the floor had dried. Its records show it raised a routine repair job to replace the kitchen floor on 18 August 2022, as the floor had dried. Its records show it completed this repair on 29 October 2022. The landlord’s flooring repair was over its repairs policy’s timeframe of 30 days for routine repairs.
The landlord’s records show on 5 September 2022 the resident refused a repair to her kitchen units and worktop. Its contractor told her to contact the landlord about a new kitchen. Its records show it did complete these repairs on 29 October 2022. However, this was under the flooring repair job it raised on 18 August 2022. It is unclear if this was the reason it did not meet its timeframe for its routine flooring repair. However, there is no record that it kept the resident updated on the progress of the repair. This was a failure to follow its repairs policy that says it will explain what work it is doing and keep the resident informed of progress.
The landlord’s records relating to its kitchen repairs has caused confusion in this investigation. For example, it raised 2 different jobs to repair kitchen units, worktops, and cabinets. Its evidence shows it completed these jobs on 29 October and 14 December 2022. However, it is unclear if these repairs related to different issues or not. This was a record keeping failure.
There were other record keeping failures by the landlord, which have impacted on our ability to assess if it met its response times for emergency repairs. Its evidence shows it responded on the same day to 4 emergency repairs it raised to the resident’s kitchen. However, it is unclear from its records if it did so within the 2-hour timeframe set out in its repairs policy for such repairs on:
1. 27 June, 5 September 2022, and 31 August 2023 to a leak in the kitchen
2. 29 June 2022 to repair a stop tap in the kitchen.
The resident said she thought the landlord would be installing a new kitchen. It was reasonable that it first looked to repair the kitchen, in line with its repairs policy. This says it will only replace a kitchen when it is not practical or economic to repair or renew. However, there is no record that the landlord clearly told the resident what repair work it was doing. It would have been reasonable to have done so, to manage her expectations. This was a communication failure.
When the resident raised her complaint, she said she felt the kitchen was a hazard. There was no plug socket for the washing machine or cooker and the units were falling apart. The resident’s evidence included photos that showed she used an extension cable to plug in her washing machine and cooker. She also told us that the kitchen lacks storage for food and does not have an extractor fan. However, there is no record that the landlord assessed the kitchen under the HHSRS. Given her concerns it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done so to confirm if the kitchen had any potential health hazards.
The landlord’s records show it raised further repairs to the kitchen floor and unit on 25 January 2024. This was after the resident had reported damaged caused by a leak. Its records show it completed its repairs on 6 February 2024. However, she remained unhappy and on 17 April 2024 she asked it to inspect the kitchen as she did not have enough plug sockets. There is no record that the landlord completed an inspection. This was a record keeping failure.
The landlord’s evidence does not include any inspection reports of the resident’s kitchen. It is unclear if it confirmed its position on what it could do to make the kitchen functional for the resident. Its communication with her was poor, as there is no record that it updated her on its progress to resolve the issue. She has told us that the situation remains the same. She has no enjoyment using the kitchen and it causes her inconvenience.
The resident told us that the landlord inspected her kitchen as its stage 2 response said it would do as a remedy. This was reasonable. She told us that its surveyor had said the kitchen had not been updated since the 1980’s. Its design did not consider white goods, as there was not much need for them when it was installed. It told her it would arrange to put the kitchen on its “update scheme” as a matter of priority. There is no record in the landlord’s evidence that it formally confirmed this with the resident. This was a record keeping and communication failure.
The resident told us that the landlord said it could not improve the kitchen layout without knocking walls down and she was still using extension cables. This is a concern which has caused the resident distress as she told us she just wanted a workable kitchen.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said the outcome of her complaint was justified given its failures. However, we do not consider the remedy it offered her reflected the inconvenience, its poor communication or lack of oversight. As the issue has not been remedied by the conclusion of the complaint procedure we have made a finding of service failure. While the landlord has taken steps to put things right the complaint has not been fully resolved by the remedy it offered her.
We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. We have also ordered it to inspect the resident’s kitchen and confirm it does not pose a hazard. It must also confirm its position on whether the kitchen is on its “update scheme.”

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would acknowledge complaints within 2 days at stage 1. It would send its response within 15 working days. Its policy does not refer to acknowledging a complaint at stage 2, but it will respond within 20 working days. Its complaints policy did not include a provision for extending its investigation at either stage.
The landlord sent the resident acknowledgement of her complaint on 13 October 2022. This was the same day she raised her complaint. This was reasonable and in line with the timeframe of its complaints policy.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 19 December 2022. This was 32 working days over its published timeframe for doing so. This was a complaint handling failure.
The landlord’s complaints policy did not have a time limit for residents escalating a complaint. Even though 14 months had passed since its stage 1 response, it was reasonable it considered the resident’s complaint at stage 2.
The landlord sent acknowledgement at stage 2 on 7 February 2024. This was 10 working days after she had escalated her complaint. Although its complaints policy did not include the need for it to do this, it was reasonable that it did so.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 17 April 2024. This was 39 working days over its published timeframe for doing so. This was a complaint handling failure.
The landlord’s records show that the resident became frustrated by its complaint handling delays. She chased it for its response on 6 and 10 February 2024. There is no record that it responded to her to update her on when she could expect its response. This was not reasonable and a communication failure.
The landlord’s stage 2 response apologised for its delay in responding to the resident. This was reasonable. However, it did not explain the reasons for this or offer her a remedy for the inconvenience and frustration this caused. This was a complaint handling failure. For this reason, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Learning

The landlord should consider learning from the case in its coordination of repairs to ensure that adequate oversight is provided.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We found record keeping failures by the landlord. Maintaining accurate, detailed records of its decisions will help to improve transparency and accountability.

Communication

Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that proactive and tailored communication can reduce distress and minimise the impact of failures. The landlord may wish to review its communication with residents in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report if it has not done so already.