Birmingham City Council (202339157)

Background

1. In 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to ask for a replacement of his 23‑year‑old kitchen. The landlord told him to call back in early January 2024. He called on 3 January 2024 and asked for a clear decision and timeframe for a kitchen replacement in 2024. The landlord said it would not have an answer until the end of March 2024. The resident made a complaint on the same day and said he wanted to know if his kitchen would be replaced and when this would happen.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to replace his bathroom and kitchen.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to replace his bathroom and kitchen.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Reasons

What we did not investigate

4. On 12 December 2025, the landlord offered the resident £500 compensation in for its handling of repairs to his bathroom – which it had identified during an inspection as part of its investigation of this complaint. The repair works carried out to the bathroom did not form part of the resident’s complaint about kitchen and bathroom replacement and the works were completed after its stage 2 complaint response on these matters. As such, the landlord’s handling of these repairs and the associated compensation offer will not form part of our investigation in this case.

What we did investigate

5. The resident said his kitchen and bathroom were 23 years old and had not been replaced by the landlord during his tenancy. He reported general wear and tear. He also noted that other homes nearby had received upgrades, which led him to believe his property might also be due. When he contacted the landlord, he received different future dates for when he might get a clearer answer about programme inclusion.
6. The reasons for any replacements of kitchens and/or bathrooms in neighbouring properties are not known. However, the evidence indicates these were not owned by the landlord but by another social housing provider. We can only assess the landlord’s actions in this individual case and cannot comment upon works carried out at other addresses.
7. The resident made a formal complaint on 3 January 2024. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said there were no planned kitchen modernisation works for the property in the 2023–2024 financial year. It explained that programme decisions are made by housing management, not through tenant requests. It said priorities are based on rolling stock‑condition surveys and that the resident would be told when his home was due to be assessed. The landlord also advised the resident that he could report any issues with his kitchen to its repairs team. It added that the property might be considered for future programmes from April 2024, but it could not give a guarantee or timeframe.
8. The resident disagreed with the stage 1 outcome and escalated his complaint to stage 2. In his escalation request, he asked the landlord to carry out a formal inspection of the bathroom to decide whether an upgrade was needed.
9. During the stage 2 investigation, the landlord arranged a bathroom inspection on 22 January 2024. Upon inspection of the bathroom, it noted that one cupboard door had started to blow, but the other bathroom units were in good condition. It also found a hairline crack in the toilet pan and cracked tiles at the end of the bath and above the cistern. The landlord raised repair jobs for these issues and contacted the resident to arrange appointments.
10. In its stage 2 response on 25 January 2024, the landlord confirmed that it would not replace the resident’s bathroom under the 2023–2024 programme. It said no modernisation works were planned for the property that year. It also said it had paused the wider programme while it redirected budgets to fire‑safety work, following the latest government advice. The landlord did not uphold this part of the complaint. It said the kitchen might be considered for future programmes, but no works were scheduled beyond the current year.
11. The government’s Decent Homes Standard sets the minimum standard for social housing and expectations of when items such as kitchens and bathrooms may need replacing. Under the guidance, a kitchen is considered ‘reasonably modern’ if it is 20 years old or less, and a bathroom is considered ‘reasonably modern’ if it is 30 years old or less.
12. The resident said his kitchen and bathroom were around 23 years old. Age alone does not mean a kitchen or bathroom are in disrepair and require replacement. Components must be both old and in poor condition before renewal is appropriate. The Decent Homes Standard also says a home does not fail to provide “modern facilities and services” unless it lacks several required facilities. This means an older kitchen or bathroom, on its own, does not mean a home fails to meet the Decent Homes Standard.
13. The landlord’s inspection showed that the bathroom was in a good condition, with only minor issues that needed repair. There is also no evidence that the kitchen required major work. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that the resident had looked after the kitchen and kept it in good condition. On this basis, the property did not meet the criteria for a kitchen or bathroom replacement. The landlord’s decision not to renew the bathroom or kitchen was therefore in keeping with the Decent Homes Standard.
14. The Decent Homes Standard guidance says landlords must plan improvements within their budgets and use public money in a way that provides value for money. The landlord is a local authority and so must spend public funds responsibly and where they can be of most benefit. The guidance explains that investment decisions depend on long‑term demand, stock‑condition surveys, and financial limits. It also says landlords may need to delay or re‑order works when resources are tight and prioritise works to make the best use of public funds. In line with this, the landlord said in its stage 2 response that it had redirected its capital budget to fire‑safety work in high‑rise homes. It did this after receiving new Government safety advice. As a result, kitchen and bathroom upgrades were put on hold. The decisions made by the landlord, as outlined in its complaint responses, were reasonable and in keeping with the Decent Homes Standard.
15. In summary, a landlord does not have to modernise a kitchen or bathroom simply because the resident requests it. The Decent Homes Standard guidance says landlords should replace components only when they meet the threshold for full renewal and carry out repairs when issues fall below that level. The guidance also says landlords must make investment decisions that reflect budget constraints and ensure value for money for all residents. The landlord’s inspection of the resident’s kitchen and bathroom showed only minor defects, and the landlord raised repair jobs in line with its policy. We therefore make a finding of no maladministration.