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

Brentwood Borough Council (202203645)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203645

Brentwood Borough Council

27 October 2022


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 response to the resident’s request for a kitchen replacement.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. The resident first reported that she had multiple kitchen units with loose hinges on 23 August 2021. The landlord’s contractors inspected the kitchen on 21 September 2021 and concluded that they would not be able to get a match for any of the kitchen doors and that the sink units were also rotten and falling apart. It is not clear from the evidence whether the contractors carried out any repairs at this time.
  3. On 29 October 2021 and 11 November 2021, the resident noted that the contractors had advised her the kitchen needed replacement and requested updates.
  4. On 18 January 2022, the landlord informed the resident that its contractors would contact her to arrange a stock condition survey but that there would be potential delays due to the ongoing recruitment process for a new surveyor.
  5. The resident made a formal complaint in March 2022 as she was dissatisfied with the lack of progress with repairs to her kitchen and she reiterated that contractors had informed her that her kitchen needed replacement.
  6. The landlord provided its stage one response on 23 March 2022. It advised that its contractors had not informed it a replacement kitchen was required and had not provided a stock condition survey which would be necessary for such an order. Nor had its contractors raised any other repairs.
  7. On the same date, the resident requested an escalation of her complaint. She also advised it was her understanding the contractors had send a report to the landlord in November 2021.
  8. The landlord provided its stage two response on 8 April 2022. The landlord disputed that it had received a report from its contractors. It explained a report could only have been made by a surveyor, but that it currently did not have a surveyor and was in the process of recruiting one. The landlord further advised that it had requested its contractors to prioritise the inspection of the resident’s property. The landlord apologised if the contractors had raised her expectations without a report.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has also raised concerns about her boiler. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The Ombudsman notes that these concerns were not made as a formal complaint to which the landlord has provided a stage one and stage two response. As such, these concerns will not be considered as part of this investigation.

Kitchen replacement

  1. Following the resident’s initial concerns about the state of repair of her kitchen, the landlord made arrangements for its contractors to attend within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. It is evident, however, that following the attendance of the contractors, there was a lack of effective communication between the contractors and the landlord, as no repairs were raised despite having been identified, nor was any inspection arranged to determine if the kitchen required replacement, despite this being the assessment of the contractors.
  3. While the contractor may not have reported this to the landlord, the resident nevertheless alerted the landlord in both October and November 2021 that the contractor had informed her a new kitchen was required. Based on the evidence provided to this service, the landlord did not subsequently seek clarification from the contractor until 3 December 2021. Given it had been made aware by the resident as early as October 2021 that repair works remained outstanding, this delay in seeking clarification from the contractor was beyond what the Ombudsman would consider reasonable.
  4. Additionally, it did not provide an update to the resident until January 2022. This extended period in which the resident’s expectation she would receive a new kitchen had been raised but without any further updates would have caused considerable frustration for the resident.
  5. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable for a landlord to attempt to carry out repairs in the first instance, and that consideration of a replacement kitchen, which would be of considerable expense, would reasonably require a surveyor’s assessment. It was therefore reasonable that it advised the resident this must first occur prior to agreeing to the replacement. In its formal responses, the landlord apologised for its contractors having raised her expectations without having completed a surveyor’s report, however, the landlord missed the opportunity to offer this apology in its January 2022 communication.
  6. Regarding its inspection, the landlord noted it currently was in the process of employing a surveyor. While it is reasonable for the landlord to seek to use its own surveyor, it nevertheless has an obligation to complete any necessary repairs. Therefore, should the employment process extend beyond a time that is reasonable, the landlord should have considered arranging for an external surveyor to complete the investigation. In any event, the landlord did not provide an indicative timeframe for the completion of the required inspection, which would have left the resident frustrated further.
  7. In its stage one response, the landlord caused further confusion for the resident by noting it had not received a report from its contractors regarding the need for a replacement of the kitchen or to otherwise carry out any repairs. It is the case, however, that the landlord had been made aware of the resident’s position that repairs were outstanding (or otherwise a replacement was needed), but the landlord did not use this opportunity to arrange any further inspections. 
  8. Following the resident’s request for escalation, the landlord, in its stage two response, appropriately acknowledged its failing and on this occasion identified that the report regarding the kitchen had not been made due to the lack of an available surveyor. It also appropriately confirmed that a further inspection was to be arranged as a priority.
  9. Although the landlord attempted to put things right in its stage two response by providing clear communication about the resident’s concerns and apologising for its failures, given the extended periods in which the landlord failed to correctly communicate its position to the landlord, and the length of time the kitchen remained without further assessment, there was maladministration in the circumstances, for which compensation is appropriate. In the circumstances, a total amount of £300 is ordered, being £100 for the landlord’s failure to effectively communicate with its contractors, £100 for the unreasonable delays to the further inspection, and £100 for the landlord’s delays in communicating its position to the resident.
  10. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident made a further report in April 2022, and the contractors that attended the property reported that the kitchen was not repairable. Following this, the landlord booked a survey at the resident’s property in September 2022. It is unclear from the evidence whether the survey has been carried out. A recommendation has therefore been made to provide updates to the resident on the matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for kitchen replacement.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £300 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of its failures.
  2. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to contact the resident providing updates on the survey inspection and its outcome if needed.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training to ensure that its record-keeping are regularly updated and that there is clear communication with its contractors.