Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (202100671)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100671

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

19 April 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 to extend or reconfigure the kitchen in her property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a three-bedroom house.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord about the size of her kitchen, explaining that she could not access all of the cupboard space and she could not have a family meal as the kitchen was too small. The resident said that she would like the pantry wall dismantled and the rear external door extended to allow for more room. The landlord said that this was not feasible due to the amount of work that would need to be carried out. The landlord suggested the removal of a double unit to make extra room, but the resident did not want this as a remedy.
  3. The landlord said in its final response, on 17 March 2021, that the kitchen met the Decent Home Standard (DHS) requirements and the landlord’s ‘scope of work and standard policy’ and, as such, it would only consider adjusting walls and relocating external doors if there was a structural concern to the house. Therefore, the landlord could not uphold the resident’s complaint as the kitchen complied with all requirements.
  4. The resident brought her complaint to this Service as she felt that the answers provided by the landlord ‘were not good enough’ in regard to her request to reconfigure her kitchen. Specifically, the resident remains unhappy that she cannot have a family meal, she cannot utilise all of her cupboards, and that she has to move her dining room chair to access her fridge, which she said had led to her furniture breaking due to the number of times it is moved. The resident would like a ‘second opinion’ and for her complaint to be reviewed.

Assessment and findings

Policy and procedures

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that, if the resident is a secure tenant, the landlord may allow them to carry out certain alterations or improvements to the home but the tenant must first get the landlord’s written consent. The landlord will not unreasonably refuse the resident’s request but other permission may also need to be sought such as planning permission. Residents must get permission to carry out the following (or other similar) work:
    1. Any structural alteration, improvement, or addition to the building, including
      1. the removal or replacement of doors;
      2. the construction of door arches; or
      3. the replacement of fireplaces.
    2. Any alteration to the internal layout of the property, adding partitions, removal or alteration of non-structural partitions.
  2. The landlord’s scope of work and standard policy states that the detailed specification for each kitchen will depend on the available space. In exceptional cases, brick larders and other walls/chimney breasts restricting the space available will be removed to allow an improved layout to be provided. Where no dining room exists and a useable eating area can be created within the kitchen, provision for this will be made in the design, at the tenant’s choice.
  3. Kitchens will include the following:
    1. For a three-bedroom property, it should have a K3 kitchen, with 10 units as standard (subject to space being available) and a maximum of 12.

Assessment

  1. In accordance with the DHS, the lifetime of a kitchen in a house or bungalow is 30 years. Moreover, Criterion C of the Decent Homes Standard states that a dwelling is considered not to meet this criterion if it lacks three or more of the following facilities:
    1. a kitchen which is 20 years old or less;
    2. a kitchen with adequate space and layout;
    3. a bathroom which is 30 years old or less;
    4. an appropriately located bathroom and WC;
    5. adequate external noise insulation; and
    6. adequate size and layout of common entrance areas for blocks of flats.
  2. Therefore, when a resident states that their kitchen was not completed to a reasonable standard and the layout was poor, a landlord should carry out an inspection to ensure that the aforementioned obligations are being met.
  3. In this instance, the landlord reviewed the available floor plan and kitchen lay-out documents and concluded that the kitchen was in line with the DHS standards which act as a minimum requirement. The landlord also visited the resident’s property to assess the kitchen size and layout in person. The kitchen was installed in 2007, so it is less than 20 years old and following its inspection, the landlord determined that it has adequate space and layout. These factors are all in compliance with the standard set by the DHS. Therefore, the landlord has complied with the statutory requirements as set out in the DHS, and was reasonable in refusing the resident’s request to reconfigure her kitchen to allow for more space.
  4. The landlord informed the resident that it had incorporated the DHS into its own scope of work and standard policy, which had further enhanced features than the minimum set by the DHS. The resident resides in a three-bedroom house and, therefore, the kitchen is required to have at least ten units. In the landlord’s final response, it informed the resident that the kitchen conformed to all of its standards and was satisfied that this was sufficient for the resident and in line with its scope of work and standard policy obligations. The landlord provided the resident with a comprehensive break-down of the kitchen standards it was required to maintain, and provided a reasonable explanation as to why it would not complete the requested work. Therefore, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s request to extend her kitchen and assessed it had complied and met with all of the statutory obligations, it was required to comply with. The landlord’s compliance was also demonstrated to this Service, as we were provided with the floor plan and the kitchen arrangement, which showed compliance with the DHS.
  5. It is important to note that social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. The landlord stated that the works the resident was requesting were substantial and excessive and would only be considered if there was a structural concern regarding the property. The work the resident is requesting is an extensive amount of work to be completed, based on the landlord’s report and would consume a significant amount of the landlord’s resources that are limited in nature for social landlords. Therefore, in the interest of managing its resources appropriately, the landlord was reasonable in informing the resident that the works would not be possible, due to the substantial nature.
  6. Residents are generally given the opportunity to view a property to check it is suitable for their needs before the start of their tenancy. Landlords are generally not expected to increase the size of a resident’s living space unless in exceptional circumstances such as making reasonable adjustments for disabled residents. The works which the resident requested would be regarded as improvements rather than repairs, because there is no item in the kitchen requiring a repair; instead, the resident wishes for an expansion of space. The landlord is not required to carry out improvements in the property; it is only required to maintain it, as per the tenancy agreement.
  7. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint, it stated that the resident had signed and accepted the design of the kitchen in 2007, when it was installed. This consequently meant that the resident took on the responsibility to complete any improvements to the kitchen, and accepted the design layout that the landlord proposed. Therefore, the landlord was reasonable in deciding that it would not complete any improvement works to the kitchen, due to the resident’s agreement on the kitchen design and layout.
  8. However, in line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord should not unreasonably deny tenants the opportunity to carry out improvements themselves, although it can refuse to allow an improvement if it has a genuine reason for doing so. Tenants must seek permission for improvements in advance. The tenant would be responsible for the cost of carrying out improvements and maintaining them.
  9. Therefore, if the resident wished to make any improvements such as the removal or replacement of doors or any alteration to the internal layout of the property, the resident can seek approval from the landlord for this work to be carried out. If the resident wishes to reconfigure the kitchen, at a cost to herself, the landlord should consider her request and explain the reasons for its decision to the resident.
  10. The landlord made reasonable efforts to find a solution for the resident to remedy the resident’s concerns. The landlord suggested the removal of two cupboards to allow for more room in the kitchen and potentially add more space for a dining room table. The resident subsequently denied this suggestion. The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for declining the landlord’s suggestion but it was reasonable for the landlord to suggest this as an option to adjust the layout of the kitchen.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to extend or reconfigure the kitchen.