Westminster City Council (202109778)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109778

Westminster City Council

17 December 2021

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 it to refurbish her kitchen.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She moved into the property in 2001.
3. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 1 December 2020. She said her kitchen had not been refurbished since she moved in. She said she had insufficient space for storage or preparing food, her cabinets were old and rusty, and a toilet pipe went across the ceiling. She asked the landlord to refurbish her kitchen, seal the pipe, and add a worktop, and cabinets.
4. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 17 December 2020. It said it had visited the property that day and found some damage to some kitchen unit doors, and drawer fronts. It said the current layout of the kitchen meant it could not allow for further developments, and so was unable to provide additional cabinets or worktops. It would not seal the pipe as it was painted and in good condition, so was not a repair issue. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
5. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 February 2021. She said her kitchen units were outdated and falling apart. She reiterated that there was insufficient space in the kitchen. She said she believed her stage one complaint had not “reasonably served the purpose and the council [were] denying [her] the right to sufficient and a working kitchen”.
6. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 24 February 2021. It reiterated what it had explained in its initial response. It said it had raised a work order to renew the kitchen sink, taps, worktop, units, and drawer fronts. It said it would complete work once COVID-19 restrictions had eased as it was not carrying out routine work currently. It advised it would contact her once normal service resumed. It said her kitchen was due to be renewed in 2027 and until then the landlord would continue to carry out necessary repairs and replace units and worktops it could not fix. It would not relocate her sink and drainage to accommodate more units, as this would be considered an improvement rather than a repair. It said that as the resident had been in her home since 2001 it would investigate whether it could bring the replacement forward. 
7. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service after the landlord issued its final response to the complaint, she explained that she did not have a fire door or fire alarm in her kitchen. She also said that she wanted the landlord to replace her kitchen.

Assessment and findings

8. The rules which govern our service are set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. In accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider issues which have not already exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. There is no evidence of the resident raising her concerns about the lack of a fire alarm and fire door in the kitchen as part of her complaint to the landlord. Therefore, this issue will not be considered in this investigation as the landlord has to be given the opportunity to respond to this complaint before the Ombudsman becomes involved. The resident should raise these issues with the landlord first, and then, once the landlord has fully investigated it, she can bring it to this Service if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her concerns.
9. The landlord’s records do not indicate how often it should refurbish a kitchen. Nonetheless, if a resident reports concerns with the condition of their kitchen, the landlord would be expected to attend and investigate to see whether there were any repair issues which fell under its responsibility for maintaining the structure of the property as set out in the tenancy agreement.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out its timescales for carrying out repairs. The repairs policy says that non urgent repairs should be completed within 28 days. The repairs the resident had reported would be regarded as non-urgent because the kitchen remained usable while the repairs were outstanding.
11. On 1 December 2020 the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord, requesting it refurbish her kitchen, and cover a waste pipe. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response it said from its visit that day it had identified various repair issues and it had raised a work order to complete them. It also said it would not seal the pipe as it was not a repair issue because the pipe was fully functional. This was a reasonable response from the landlord as it would not be expected to carry out work unless it had identified a repair which it was responsible for.  The landlord would not be obliged to seal the pipe unless it was malfunctioning.
12. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response it explained that the resident’s kitchen was due to be refurbished in 2027, and that it would complete the outstanding repairs once its normal service had resumed (due to the COVID-19 pandemic). It is understandable that if the issues identified in the kitchen could be resolved by repairs, that the landlord would pursue this option rather than a full kitchen refurbishment. Social landlords have limited resources and they are expected to manage their resources effectively, for the benefit of all their residents. This includes seeking the most cost–effective resolution to any repair issues, whilst ensuring they fulfil their responsibilities for carrying out repairs. Also, the landlord’s explanation as to why it was unable to complete repairs at that time was reasonable as it is it was temporarily providing limited service to residents in line with national guidance to reduce contact with others wherever possible during the Covid19 lockdown.
13. The landlord demonstrated that it had considered the resident’s concerns by explaining in its stage two complaint response that it would attend to reassess whether it could bring the kitchen refurbishment forward. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider bringing the refurbishment forward in view of the age of the kitchen. Although, as explained above this would not mean the landlord was obliged to replace the kitchen ahead of the scheduled date of 2027.

Determination (decision)

14. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to refurbish her kitchen.

Reasons

15. The landlord attended to inspect the kitchen, said it would carry out repairs, and explained why it would not refurbish it. Its explanations and actions were reasonable in the circumstances of the complaint and in line with its responsibilities for repairs under the tenancy agreement and repairs policy.