Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202222341)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222341

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

24 January 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the suitability of her kitchen.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the property since 2015, where she lives with her young child. The property is a third floor 2 bedroom flat. The landlord is a local authority, which owns and manages the property.
The landlord attended the property on 4 May 2021 to inspect a leak on the balcony. While at the property, the landlord noted that the resident had said she was waiting for an appointment to inspect her kitchen. The resident said she wanted the landlord to install a cupboard and worktop under her kitchen window and to relocate a wall unit to provide her with more space for a larger fridge.
The landlord inspected the kitchen during the visit on 4 May 2021 and noted there was an inadequate amount of worktop space. The landlord visited again on 7 June 2021 and its notes show it agreed to order a new worktop and to relocate the wall cupboard unit from above the fridge.
The resident called the landlord on 5 July 2021 and 1 April 2022 to ask for an update on when the work would start. The landlord provided no follow up to these requests.
The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 27 September 2022, in which she:
1. Explained the landlord had agreed to alter her kitchen over a year earlier but no work had been done.
2. Said she had previously requested updates and the landlord had told her it was waiting for parts.
3. Stated the landlord had then told her on 27 September 2022 that it had closed the job in June 2021. The resident asked who had closed the job and why.
4. Confirmed the landlord had told her on 27 September 2022 that it had reopened the job and would contact her within 14 days.
5. Said that, given the previous delays, she was unwilling to wait 14 days and requested immediate attention to resolve the matter.
The landlord emailed the resident on 11 October 2022 stating its carpentry supervisor was away from work until 17 October 2022, which would cause a delay in its addressing the complaint. The landlord said it would send a response after 17 October 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 October 2022 asking for an update to the complaint, noting that the landlord had not responded within the timescale provided under its policy.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 October 2022, in which it:
1. Apologised for the delay in sending its stage 1 response.
2. Acknowledged it had taken measurements for the work on 21 June 2022 [sic] but had not followed up with the work.
3. Said this was due to “several factors impacting our carpentry team and our ability to provide an effective service to our residents”.
4. Confirmed it had made an appointment to complete the work on 21 November 2022.
5. Offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £30 for the inconvenience caused by the delay.
6. Explained how the resident could escalate her complaint if she was dissatisfied with the response.
The resident raised a stage 2 escalation request on 21 November 2022, in which she:
1. Said he had spent time tidying and rearranging her kitchen in anticipation of the landlord completing the work on 21 November 2022 but, when the contractors arrived, they did not have the required equipment to complete the job.
2. Confirmed she had been waiting for the work to be completed since June 2021, not 21 June 2022 as the landlord had said in its stage 1 response.
3. Said the kitchen lacked adequate space and she suspected it failed to meet the required Decent Homes Standard.
4. Raised concerns that the contractors had told her all newly fitted kitchen units were white, whereas her existing units were maple.
5. Asked if, this being the case, she could have all her existing units replaced so they matched, which would also protect her right to exchange by preventing a mismatch in units causing prospective tenants to reject the property.
6. Said she had received a call from the landlord following the contractors’ visit, during which the landlord had said the £30 goodwill gesture it had previously offered was meant for her to buy and fit the units herself.
7. Confirmed her desired resolution was for the landlord to order and fit the units before the end of the following month; to provide replacement white units; to provide clarity on the purpose of the proposed £30 goodwill gesture; and to respond to her question previously raised in her original complaint about who closed the original job in June 2021 and why.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 December 2022, in which it:
1. Confirmed it had made an error in its stage 1 response and that it had taken measurements in June 2021 rather than June 2022.
2. Explained it had closed the job in June 2021 because it “duplicated” another job number on its system which was raised to take measurements. As the landlord had taken measurements in June 2021, it had closed both jobs.
3. Said it would raise an order to replace the resident’s worktop and damaged drawer. However, it would not re-site her kitchen cupboards nor replace serviceable kitchen units because this would be an improvement rather than a repair.
4. Stated the resident’s kitchen was not on its current programme for an upgrade and that its criteria for a replacement required a kitchen to be at least 20 years old and to have 2 or more failed major components.
5. Confirmed the £30 goodwill gesture was to address the delays and was not meant to fund the resident purchasing replacement units herself. It said its staff member who spoke to her about this was new and may have misspoken.
6. Explained she could approach this Service for an independent review if she remained dissatisfied.
The landlord contacted the resident on 30 December 2022 to make an appointment to complete the more limited repair work it had agreed to in its stage 2 response, but the resident declined this.
The resident duly made her complaint to this Service on 26 July 2023.
On 17 August 2023, the landlord advised this Service it had inspected the kitchen on 16 August 2023 and agreed to fit a new base unit under the kitchen window with a worktop, as per the resident’s original request. The landlord said it had also agreed to replace all the remaining kitchen unit doors so they matched in colour.
During a discussion with this Service on 3 January 2024, the resident confirmed the landlord completed the works in October 2023. However, the resident said the landlord had discarded the kitchen unit previously above her fridge rather than relocating this to a different section of the wall as she had originally requested.

Assessment and findings

Concerns about kitchen suitability

During her complaint to the landlord, the resident said she suspected her kitchen did not meet the requirements of the Decent Homes Standard.
There are four criteria a home must meet for the landlord to be compliant with the Decent Homes Standard. The criterion relevant to the resident’s claim states a decent home has “reasonably modern facilities and services”. To fail this criterion, a dwelling must lack 3 or more of the following:
1. A reasonably modern kitchen (20 years old or less).
2. A kitchen with adequate space and layout.
3. A reasonably modern bathroom (30 years old or less).
4. An appropriately located bathroom and WC.
5. Adequate insulation against external noise.
6. Adequate size and layout of common areas for blocks of flats.
It is not possible to determine if the resident’s home fails to meet the Decent Homes Standard on the basis of the resident’s claim because the resident is only arguing that 18b (above) is applicable. A review under the Decent Homes Standard would require a larger assessment of the property as a whole, which the resident is not seeking, and there is not enough evidence to enable. As such, the Ombudsman does not make a finding about the Decent Homes Standard in relation to this case.
Section 7 of the landlord’s property letting standard policy confirms what is typically included in its kitchens by size. While the Ombudsman does not have exact measurements of the kitchen as a whole, the photographic evidence suggests that the kitchen is less than 6m² in size. The policy states kitchens of this size will typically comprise:
1. Sink and drainer with base unit.
2. Double base unit with drawers (or 2 single units).
3. Double wall unit (or 2 single units).
4. Minimum 1.5m worktop space.
Based on the evidence available, including the photographic evidence of the kitchen and the notes from the inspection on 4 May 2021, the Ombudsman considers that the resident did not have the minimum amount of worktop space specified in section 7 of the landlord’s letting standard policy when she requested the works.
The landlord’s property letting standard policy states “the size and shape of your kitchen may mean that the exact details of this standard cannot be met”. However, it goes on to say that “if possible, we will supply alternative kitchen units to provide you with enough cupboard space”. The photographic evidence shows the resident had space underneath her kitchen window for an additional base unit and worktop, which would have enabled the kitchen to meet the 1.5m worktop space standard. As such, while the work may have been an improvement rather than a repair, it was reasonable for the landlord to agree to this work under its policy.
As the agreed work was an improvement rather than a repair, there was no specific timescale for this in the landlord’s policy. However, the landlord should have still provided the resident with a reasonable timeframe for completion of the work.
In this case, the landlord did not complete the work in a reasonable timeframe, and it only did so after the resident brought the matter to this Service. The landlord took 2 years and 4 months to complete the work after agreeing to this on 7 June 2021. During this time, the resident was living in the property with inadequate worktop space.
The landlord did not have regard to its letting standard policy when it reassessed the resident’s request at stage 2 of its complaints procedure. Rather than recognising that the resident did not have the minimum amount of worktop space expected under its policy, the landlord simply viewed the work as an improvement rather than a repair and therefore thought it was not liable to complete this.
In addition to the long delays the resident experienced with getting the work completed, the resident was caused further inconvenience when the landlord’s contractors attended on 21 November 2022 and were unable to complete the job. The landlord should have had adequate record keeping and communication with its contractors to enable successful completion of the work on this date.
The resident has told us that the landlord discarded one of the kitchen wall units rather than relocating this when it completed the work in October 2023. If so, the resident’s kitchen may not comply with section 7(c) of the landlord’s letting standards policy.

Complaint handling

The “formal complaints stages” of the landlord’s complaints policy says it will:
1. Acknowledge all complaints within 5 days of receipt.
2. Provide its stage 1 response within 15 working days of receipt of the complaint.
3. Provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of receipt of the escalation request.
However, the “complaint handling standards” section of the policy also says that, if there are good reasons as to why it cannot meet these timescales, the landlord will inform the resident as soon as possible of the reasons and provide a revised timescale.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint 10 working days after receiving it and sent its stage 1 response 22 working days after receiving it. Both sets of correspondence failed the timescales required under the landlord’s policy.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the delay had been caused by “several factors” impacting its carpentry team, but it provided no details as to what this entailed. This was not a satisfactory explanation for the long delays faced by the resident.
At stage 1, the landlord did not provide a response about who closed the job in June 2021 and why. The resident had to raise this again in her stage 2 escalation request before the landlord provided a response.
The landlord also did not provide any response to the resident’s claim made in her stage 2 escalation request about her kitchen potentially failing to meet the Decent Homes Standard.
These examples demonstrate a lack of care and attention from the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint at stages 1 and 2. This is contrary to sections 4.7 and 5.6 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which respectively state that the landlord must “consider all information and evidence carefully” and “address all points raised in the complaint”.
Section 6.2 of the Complaint Handling Code states that any resolution offered by the landlord “must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result”.
Despite recognising it had made mistakes which had resulted in the resident waiting 18 months for completion of the work (by the time of its stage 2 response in December 2022), the landlord only offered the resident £30 to resolve her complaint. This was not proportionate to the significant delays and inconvenience faced by the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the suitability of the kitchen.
2. Complaint.

Orders

It is hereby ordered that, within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord replaces the kitchen wall unit it removed in October 2023.
It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with a payment of £550. This comprises:
1. £400 for the delays and inconvenience faced by the resident in relation to the kitchen works.
2. £150 to address the failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with an apology written by a senior member of staff.