Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202429952)

Background

1. The resident complained that her kitchen repair had left her with mismatched units after her original cupboards were discontinued. The landlord explained that it would only replace defective cupboards and not make changes for cosmetic reasons. The resident is dissatisfied with the mismatched units and wants all the doors replaced with grey doors.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of mismatched kitchen units following a repair.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of mismatched kitchen units following a repair.
4. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
5. We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord discussed the colour mismatch with the resident prior to the repair and explored options internally regarding the mismatched units. However, it was not responsible for cosmetic repairs and there was no defect with the remaining doors.
7. The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint handling policy.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

8. On 16 July 2024 the resident requested the removal of a kitchen unit to make space for a fridge and allow wheelchair access. In completing this job, the landlord needed to replace some kitchen cupboards however the colour of the existing kitchen units had been discontinued. On 19 July 2024 the landlord discussed the colour difference with the resident. While the resident was not happy about the mismatched units, she agreed to the repair and later raised a complaint. The landlord sought advice from a supervisor, who confirmed that it could only replace defective units rather than carry out cosmetic replacements. In its final response, while the landlord acknowledged the resident’s frustrations, it explained that it was not responsible for cosmetic changes in accordance with the tenant’s handbook.
9. Prior to the repair being undertaken the resident was informed of the colour issue and agreed to the repair. It was appropriate for the landlord to discuss this with her and give her prior notice of the mismatch. Communication with the resident was clear from the outset regarding the discontinuation of the colour of the existing kitchen units. This was appropriate and the landlord ensured the resident was fully aware of this.
10. The contractors queried whether anything could be done both during and after the repair. However, the tenant’s handbook stated that the landlord is responsible for replacing kitchen cupboards and cupboard drawers that are beyond repair rather than matching existing units. Therefore, the repairs team replaced only defective units and did not renew cupboards for cosmetic reasons. We have not seen any evidence that there was a defect with the remaining doors, and the colour mismatch is solely a cosmetic concern. It was reasonable for the landlord to apply its policy and obligations in accordance with the tenancy handbook. We have not seen any evidence to suggest that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to exercise discretion and depart from its policy to offer a kitchen refit without need and solely for cosmetic reasons.
11. We have found no maladministration in its handling of the reports of mismatched kitchen units following the repair.

12. Under its complaints policy the landlord will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 October 2024, 11 working days after the complaint was submitted. This was one day late but the minimal delay caused no adverse impact and therefore did not amount to a failing.
13. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 7 October 2024, and the landlord responded on 7 November 2024. This was 23 working days after acknowledging the escalation request. This was 3 days late, but the minimal delay caused no adverse impact and therefore did not amount to a failing.
14. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

15. The landlord displayed good record keeping practice which allowed us to investigate the complaint.

Communication

16. The landlord’s communication with the resident was good. It ensured that the mismatch issue was discussed with the resident prior to the repair, and it was responsive to the resident’s contact.