Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Bristol City Council (202217447)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217447

Bristol City Council

15 September 2023


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 request for a replacement kitchen.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as a secure tenant since 2011. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
  2. In October 2020, the resident asked the landlord to replace her kitchen. She said the kitchen was not new when she moved into the property. She said it did not have enough units and the configuration was dangerous. The landlord surveyed the kitchen. It identified repairs were needed but said the kitchen was in a good condition and had an adequate number of units. It told the resident that the kitchen was fitted in 2008, and under its policy would not be replaced until 2028.
  3. In November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for a review of the decision not to replace the kitchen. The landlord confirmed the findings of the previous survey. The resident replied asking for evidence that the kitchen had been replaced in 2008.
  4. In March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord as she had not been provided with evidence. She also raised concerns about the kitchen with her councillor. A second survey took place, which concluded the kitchen was a good size but had a poor layout. It identified further repairs and a problem with the position of the cooker and washing machine. The landlord confirmed to the councillor and resident that the kitchen would be replaced in 2028 in line with its policy.
  5. The resident raised a complaint on 17 November 2022 about the decision not to replace the kitchen. In its response on 29 November 2022, the landlord confirmed that the request to bring forward the renewal date had been refused.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint. She said the landlord had not provided proof that the property had a new kitchen in 2008.
  7. In its final response on 13 January 2023, the landlord said its records showed the kitchen had been replaced on 17 September 2008. It acknowledged that the resident did not agree with the date, but it said its evidence was consistent with the kitchen being replaced in 2008. It said there was no evidence that the kitchen required replacement before 2028.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied and raised a complaint with this service on 6 March 2023. On 11 May 2023, following a Freedom of Information request, the landlord provided the resident with repairs records for her property from 2008. The resident said that the landlord’s records show that a kitchen was ordered in 2008 but did not show that it was fitted.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen

  1. The landlord’s policy on repairing and replacing components sets out its approach to replacing kitchens. It says the lifespan of components, such as kitchens, are based on maximising the value of the component while ensuring a timely replacement to make best use of funds. The landlord says that component lifecycles are based on the Government’s Decent Homes Guidance 2006, and then adjusted to take account of the local housing stock, maintenance regimes, and changes to standards since 2006. This service agrees that it is reasonable for the landlord to take account of national guidance and local circumstances when deciding whether to replace a kitchen.
  2. When assessing whether a property meets the Decent Homes Standard, the landlord considers whether it is free from category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). It also considers whether they are in a reasonable state of repair and have reasonably modern facilities.
  3. The landlord’s policy on repairing and replacing components says a kitchen installed to the current Decent Homes Standard will be replaced after 25 years. Kitchens installed to the previous lower standard will be replaced after 20 years. Until the replacement date is reached, the landlord says kitchens will be repaired, and individual units replaced to allow them to function and avoid any HHSRS category 1 hazards. The landlord says the replacement date may be brought forward if substantial repair is required and it is within 2 years of the replacement date, or if the installation date is incorrectly recorded and so is overdue. This service has noted that the landlord says that the kitchen was fitted when the lower standard applied, and so is due for replacement after 20 years.
  4. In October 2020, the resident told the landlord that her kitchen was old, it did not have enough units, and the configuration of the washing machine and cooker was causing problems. She requested a replacement kitchen. The landlord took the reasonable step of arranging a surveyor to assess the kitchen. The surveyor reported that the kitchen was of a reasonable standard but identified some repairs were required. In line with its policy on repairing and replacing components, the landlord offered to repair the faults that had been identified to allow the kitchen to function and avoid any HHSRS category 1 hazards.
  5. The resident asked for a review of the decision in November 2021. The landlord confirmed its previous position. However, after the resident contacted her councillor, the landlord carried out a second survey in March 2022. The surveyor said the kitchen had a poor layout. In particular, the surveyor said the resident had to replace the washing machine because heat from the cooker had melted the hose and caused damage. The surveyor said there was nowhere else to reposition either appliance. The surveyor identified further repairs that would improve the kitchen. This included altering pipework to ensure the washing machine hose was kept away from the cooker, which the landlord said would resolve the problem with the hose. The surveyor did not identify any HHSRS category 1 hazards or substantial disrepair. The repairs identified were offered to the resident. As the landlord was following its policy on replacing the kitchen, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer further repairs to allow the kitchen to function and avoid any category 1 hazards.
  6. This service has noted the surveyor’s comments about heat from the cooker melting the washing machine hose and has noted the proposed works to alter pipework to remedy the problem. However, NHBC technical guidance on electrical fittings near cookers, sinks and wash basins issued in January 2016 (electrical-fittings-near-cookers-sinks-and-wash-basins-.pdf (nhbc.co.uk), says an electrical appliance placed a “minimum distance of 100mm, measured horizontally from an electrical accessory to the edge of a free–standing cooker or individual hob is considered acceptable for the purposes of avoiding adverse effects from using a cooker or hob”. It is this service’s opinion that the landlord should survey the kitchen, with specific reference to the position of the cooker and washing machine, to satisfy itself that the current layout offers not only a useable, practical space, but also a safe space. If the landlord cannot satisfy itself that the layout offers a useable, practical, and safe space, it should provide a solution that will ensure this.
  7. The landlord has provided this service with repair records that it says show the kitchen was replaced on 17 September 2008. The landlord has also provided records showing it replaced kitchen units in 2016. The resident requested this information on several occasions. This service has noted that the landlord only provided it to the resident when she made a Freedom of Information request. It is not this service’s role to adjudicate on Freedom of Information requests, but we have noted that the landlord failed to provide the information when it was first requested by the resident.
  8. The repair records from 2008 provided by the landlord detail items such as base units, wall units and worktops, and work on plastering and tiling. The resident disputes the work took place. She says the kitchen was not new when she moved into the property in 2011, 3 years after the landlord says it replaced the kitchen. This service has been provided with photographs of the kitchen said to have been taken in 2015, 2016 and 2020. The photographs taken by the resident in 2015 appear to show a kitchen worktop and units typical of a design from before 2000. However, this service can only consider factual evidence available and cannot make a determination based on what a photograph may show.
  9. This service has noted that the landlord replaced many of the kitchen units in 2016, and that subsequent surveys in 2020 and 2022 did not identify HHSRS category 1 hazards or substantial disrepair. This means the kitchen meets the Decent Homes Standard and does not meet the criteria in the landlord’s policy for bringing forward replacement because of substantial disrepair.
  10. The landlord records show a kitchen was fitted in 2008. There is no evidence this service can consider that the installation date was incorrectly recorded. This means the kitchen does not meet the criteria in the landlord’s policy for bringing forward replacement because the date was incorrectly recorded.
  11. On the balance of probabilities, based on the evidence, this service finds that the landlord carried out work to replace the kitchen in 2008. On this basis, the landlord has followed its policy on kitchen replacement, and the kitchen is not due for replacement until 2028. The offer to carry out repairs was reasonable in the circumstances and there was no maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision not to replace the kitchen. This is because, based on the evidence provided, the landlord replaced the kitchen in 2008, and under its policy the kitchen is not due for replacement until 2028.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord surveys the kitchen, with specific reference to the position of the cooker and washing machine, to satisfy itself that the current layout offers not only a useable, practical space, but also a safe space. If the landlord cannot satisfy itself that the layout offers a useable, practical, and safe space, it should provide a solution that will ensure this.