Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Westminster City Council (202216982)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216982

Westminster City Council

28 February 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s decision not to allow amendments to the planned design of the resident’s replacement kitchen.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant and has lived at the property since January 2015 following a mutual exchange. The property is a 1-bedroomed flat on the 4th floor in a block.
  2. On 23 March 2022, the resident made a request to the landlord for alterations to the kitchen. He asked that he be permitted to use his storage cupboard for his fridge, and to remove a corner unit to move his tumble dryer.
  3. The landlord attended on 30 March 2022 to assess the kitchen, and internal notes state that the resident needed to put his request in writing. It told him not to start the works until he had received permission, and that should he ever relinquish his tenancy he would need to reinstate all alterations to their previous layout.
  4. Permission was granted on 19 April 2022 for the resident to make the following alterations:
    1. Removal of base unit door and installing a dryer.
    2. Removal of kitchen gas meter cupboard door and installing a mini fridge supported by a concrete shelf.
    3. Connection of gas to cooker and hob.
  5. The letter also stated that all work needed to be completed to the satisfaction of the repairs manager and the resident was solely responsible for future maintenance. The resident was also responsible for arranging a Gas Safe engineer to carry out works and he had to submit a Gas Safe Certificate to the landlord on completion.  It noted that fixtures and fittings would become the property of the landlord should the tenancy end, and fixtures removed at end of tenancy would be recharged.
  6. The landlord sent a letter on 5 July 2022 to advise that a kitchen and bathroom replacement project would be commencing in July 2022. It encouraged residents to book a design appointment and advised that at separate times an asbestos surveyor, a resident liaison officer and kitchen designer may be present.
  7. The resident’s design appointment took place on 18 July 2022 and the kitchen contractor sent an email to the resident on 26 July 2022 to confirm that it could not deviate from the standard specification for kitchens and the fridge must be located on the floor. If the resident was not agreeable, it would not be completing any work at the property. The contractor noted that it had also discussed the specification for a bathroom upgrade, but the resident declined this.
  8. In the resident’s complaint submitted on 27 July 2022, he stated that he was unhappy with the decision that only a standard kitchen could be fitted as he had received written permission for alterations which had been requested due to lack of space. He stated that he had not refused the kitchen, as he was not given the opportunity to see anything. He also felt that the contractors were rude towards him. The complaint was acknowledged on 2 August 2022, giving a deadline of 10 August 2022 for the landlord’s stage 1 response. It sent a follow-up email on 17 August 2022 requesting an extension until 24 August 2022 as it was ‘unable to meet the deadline’.
  9. The stage 1 response was issued on 18 August 2022, in which the landlord said it had no record of permission being given for the kitchen alterations. It asked the resident to provide a copy of the letter and agreed to review this further on receipt. The complaint was not upheld, and it reiterated that the kitchen would be installed in accordance with the standard brief.
  10. The resident said that the landlord had sent contractors on a number of occasions who had promised to provide a new kitchen or bathroom and had let him down. He requested that the complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 21 September 2022. Acknowledgment was given on the same day giving a deadline of 20 October 2022. On 21 October 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to chase the complaint response as he had not received the outcome.
  11. On 16 November 2022, the resident received a letter from a ‘resident advocate’ advising that the kitchen works in the area were nearing completion and to ensure he raised any concerns.
  12. The landlord’s stage 2 response was given on 23 November 2022 and stated:
    1. It was sorry for the delay in the stage 2 response.
    2. It was not able to provide bespoke kitchen solutions. Kitchen replacements were designed to comply with the relevant health and safety requirements as well as minimising ongoing maintenance and repairs requirements that may come up in the future.
    3. It had a limited budget with which to complete upgrade works, and this was the reason for standardised plans.
    4. It had written to him to explain the process of installing his own kitchen and the relevant tenancy terms relating to ongoing maintenance, and what would happen if he moved out. Namely:
      1. The tenant will be solely responsible for any damage caused by the works or any public or third-party liability arising there from.
      2. The tenant will be solely responsible for any future maintenance to any alterations or works carried out under this permission, including any fixtures, fittings and appliances which he/she has provided or installed.
      3. The fixtures, fittings or appliances installed will become landlord fixtures on vacation of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
      4. Fixtures removed by outgoing tenants and reinstated by the landlord will be charged to the outgoing tenant.
      5. It must be understood that no financial responsibility whatsoever falls upon the landlord in respect of any works or alterations carried out under this permission.
    5. The permission he was given was for an alteration request should he decide that he would like to install his own kitchen at his own cost. It did not cover works that are being offered as part of a programme funded by the landlord.
    6. It could not confirm who completed previous surveys but suggested they may have been stock condition surveys.
    7. It apologised for any rudeness by operatives and offered £20 for delays in the stage 2 response and an apology given for the service failure and lack of clarity in the stage 1 complaint. A form was provided for the resident to claim the compensation.
  13. The resident was unhappy with this response, particularly the quoted tenancy terms as he had purchased freestanding items which were not the property of the landlord. Following contact with the Ombudsman, the landlord contacted the resident on 9 October 2023 to attempt to reach a resolution. The resident informed the Ombudsman that he felt the offer of £20 compensation was “an insult” and that he objected to the landlord’s letter “requesting they take control of his property.” He said he believed that the landlord wanted to take control of his free-standing appliances and contested its right to do this.
  14. On 2 February 2024, the landlord sent the Ombudsman a copy of the most recent complaint review. It confirmed that the only service failure it had identified was the delay in stage 2 complaint response. The resident has been added to the current kitchen installation programme and would be contacted by the contractor. Its final position was that it was not reasonable, efficient, or an effective use of public money to compromise on such a bespoke request.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s decision not to make changes to its standard kitchen layout, as this is the substantive issue in this complaint. The resident has another open case with the Ombudsman which encompasses a number of other complaints, and those issues will be addressed in that investigation.

The landlord’s decision not to allow amendments to the planned design of the resident’s replacement kitchen

  1. The Ombudsman recognises that budget is a key issue for social landlords in determining how to manage its cyclical upgrades, and using a standard layout for all properties can be the most cost-effective choice. The responsibility of a social landlord is to ensure that homes meet legislative requirements, are compliant with the Decent Home Standards and are free of hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. There is no legal requirement for landlords to provide bespoke kitchens or bathrooms as standard.
  2. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with its brief and standard requirements for the kitchen upgrade programme which took place in 2022-2023. It confirms that, while most properties would be upgraded using a standardised format, it permits adaptions in relation to disability, following occupational therapist recommendations and illness assessment recommendations. We have not seen evidence in this case that changes were requested by the resident due to health considerations or disability.
  3. The resident requested permission to make changes to his kitchen as he felt that he did not have enough space to fit his appliances. The landlord responded with a letter giving permission, and it was clear that it would not be completing the works, and it would be the responsibility of the resident at his cost. It also clearly stated who was responsible for ongoing maintenance if these changes were implemented, and the implications if the resident ever left the property. However, the fact that the landlord had misplaced this permission letter caused additional frustration for the resident. The landlord should have suitable records of all alteration requests and its responses, to ensure it can attribute maintenance responsibility to the correct party.
  4. Given the kitchen replacement works were scheduled for soon after this alteration request, this should have been considered when making the decision. Internal emails indicate that communication between departments was poor, as the repairs team were unaware of planned upgrades. Had the team been provided with the information, its decision to permit alterations may have been different. Alternatively, it could have set correct expectations for the resident around the format of the proposed new kitchen.
  5. Email communications between the parties indicate that the resident may have misunderstood the landlord when it stated it would take ownership of alterations should the tenancy end. This should have been explained to the resident clearly, and his understanding confirmed. A recommendation will be added to the end of this report for the landlord to contact the resident and provide clarity.
  6. The Ombudsman recognises that this issue has been frustrating for the resident, and that he feels as though he has been ‘let down’ previously regarding proposed upgrades to his property. While the landlord made errors in its communication when considering allowing changes in the same area where works were being planned, this does not mean it must incorporate the resident’s planned alterations into its design, nor should it be required to pay for the alterations. The proposed works were sufficient to meet its legislative requirements and were fair and reasonable given its budgetary considerations. It has also confirmed that the offer to include the kitchen in its upgrade programme still stands, however it is not clear whether the permission previously given to the resident for alterations also still stands.
  7. The Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to allow amendments to the planned kitchen design. Although there were errors made in the landlord’s communication it has met all legislative requirements by offering a kitchen of a standard design. Although a more tailored design may be desirable for residents, it is reasonable for landlords to put focus on functionality and cost effectiveness.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. Complaints at both stages will be acknowledged within 2 working days. A stage 1 response will be issued within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days. In cases where it is unable to provide a response within that time it will contact the resident to provide a revised timescale.
  2. The landlord contacted the resident to advise there would be a delay in its stage 1 response, however it did not do so at stage 2 when it was unable to meet the 20-day deadline. There were 46 days between the escalation request and the response being sent. While it apologised and offered £20, this does not accurately reflect the inconvenience for the resident, particularly as he had to make additional contact with the landlord.
  3. The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure as the compensation offered in the complaints process did not reflect the time and trouble for the resident during the complaints process. The landlord did not have a record of the original alterations’ permission letter and should have asked the resident for this prior to making its stage 1 decision. This would have enabled the landlord to make a more thorough and accurate investigation of the complaint. The landlord also failed to contact the resident when it became evident it was not going to be able to meet the stage 2 deadline, meaning the resident felt he had to chase the response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to allow amendments to the planned design of the resident’s kitchen.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
    1. Within the next 4 weeks, the landlord must pay the resident £175, including the £20 already offered, for his time and trouble during the complaints process including having to provide a copy of the original permission letter.
  2. The landlord should confirm compliance, with evidence, with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. Within the next 8 weeks the landlord should contact the resident and:
    1. Confirm whether he wishes to proceed with the planned kitchen upgrade.
    2. If he does wish to proceed, the landlord shouldensure the estimated date for completion is communicated to him as soon as possible.
    3. If he does not wish to proceed with an upgrade and he still wishes to carry out the alterations, the landlord should honour its previous decision to allow him to carry them out.
    4. Confirm its position on what happens if the tenancy ends in relation to the resident’s free-standing appliances.
  2. Within the next 8 weeks the landlord should review its interdepartmental communication arrangements regarding planned improvement works and ensure:
    1. Teams who are managing alterations requests are informed of planned improvement works so that these may be considered when deciding whether to grant permission.
    2. The process for staff who are approving alterations includes an additional check for planned works, to ensure the proposed alteration does not conflict with any planned upgrade works.
  3. The landlord should confirm its intentions regarding the above recommendations to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 8 weeks of this report.