Home Group Limited (202211370)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211370

Home Group Limited

17 May 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 handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to her kitchen, and her subsequent request for a kitchen replacement.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, residing in a three-bedroom house. The landlord’s records have the resident listed as vulnerable.
3. On 2 March 2022, the resident requested the landlord to inspect her kitchen because of her kitchen’s alleged state of disrepair. She advised it that allegedly there was mould in one of the kitchen cupboards in which she stored food, and general disrepair to the kitchen units.
4. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 7 March 2022, and carried out an inspection of her kitchen. It found that there was a small amount of damp in a cupboard underneath her kitchen sink, but it believed that the amount of damp was minimal and was not a cause for concern and could easily have been cleaned up. It found that one of the kitchen unit doors and drawer fronts needed replacing but that all of the damage was cosmetic and so there was no need to replace her kitchen at that time. The landlord offered to replace the unit that had cosmetic damage but allegedly the resident refused because it would not be able to source a unit in a matching colour.
5. On 16 March 2022, the resident advised the landlord that her kitchen sink was lifting. The landlord attended her property on 18 March 2022 and the sink was repaired on the same day.
6. On 12 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and advised it that she had contacted it several times in order to get her kitchen units replaced. She advised it that, allegedly, her kitchen had been replaced in 2004 and that she had been informed by the landlord that her kitchen was not due to be replaced until 2035. She reiterated her concerns about mould being present in the cupboard in which she stored food and about the state of her kitchen units. She alleged that its operative that had fixed her kitchen sink had advised her that her whole kitchen needed to be replaced. She also alleged that some of her neighbours were to receive kitchen replacements that year, although she believed those kitchens had to be in a better condition than her kitchen. Later the same day, she made a formal complaint about all of the above. She stated that she would escalate her complaint if she failed to hear from the landlord by the end of that week.
7. Internal emails, dated 18 May 2022, show that the landlord’s records indicated that the resident’s kitchen had been replaced in 2010 and was currently planned to be replaced in 2030. Internal emails dated the same day also advised that the landlord had inspected the resident’s property with a damp meter on 17 December 2021, and that no damp had been recorded. The meter reading had been shown to the resident at that time. According to the landlord, very little damp and mould had been visible in her property at that time.
8. On 14 June 2022, the landlord advised the resident that her property had been inspected with a damp meter and that no damp had been found. It believed that the mould was most likely being caused by condensation and advised her that if she kept her home heated and ventilated to improve the airflow throughout, particularly in those areas where moisture tended to be at a higher level such as in the kitchen, that that would help reduce the condensation.
9. On 15 June 2022, the landlord issued its first-stage complaint response. It stated that when it had inspected the resident’s property,there had been no evidence of mould being present in the cupboard that she had identified. While mould had been found in another cupboard, it believed the amount to be minimal and no cause for concern and easy to clean away.It had found some cosmetic damage to some of the kitchen units.However, since unitsthat matched in that exact colour had been discontinued, it would have to wait until suitable matching units were available.It advised her that it was able to source non-matching units,thoughit appreciated that those would not be as aesthetically pleasing.It had determined that her kitchen did not require renewal at that time and would remain on the planned schedule to be replaced on its cyclical maintenance program in 2035.Where repair work could be undertaken to put an issue right, it would take that course of action before deciding to renew.
10. The landlord explained that while it appreciated the resident’s comments about some of her neighbours receiving kitchen replacements, her kitchen was still within its lifecycle. It advised her that it worked hard to ensure that its residents’ homes met the Government’s Decent Home Standards and would of course continue to maintain her current kitchen through the completion of necessary repair work. It advised that while it did not uphold her complaint it would escalate it.
11. The landlord issued its final-stage complaint response on 16 August 2022, and advised the resident that although it understood that it could be frustrating to have repairs completed and that replacing a base unit would mean that it may not have matched with the rest of the kitchen, this was in line with its repairs policy and sometimes it had no alternative but to use non-matching items when the original specifications had been discontinued. It advised that the inspection of her kitchen on 7 March 2022 had not indicated anything other than minor cosmetic damage and, therefore, a new kitchen installation was not considered necessary.
12. The landlord advised the resident that the planned schedule for replacement kitchens in her area was not 2035 as initially quoted but in fact 2030. It apologised for the previous misinformation but was pleased to confirm an earlier date than originally specified. It advised her that it would always strive to maintain her kitchen in as good a state of repair as possible, and that its offer to replace the unit fronts as specified still stood. It advised her that if she decided to go ahead with the proposed repairs, then to let it know and it would arrange for the repairs to be carried out. As a result, it did not uphold her complaint.
13. The resident then contacted this Service on 30 January 2023, because she was unhappy with the landlord’s decision not to replace her kitchen. The outcome that she sought was for her kitchen to be replaced immediately.
14. On 4 April 2023, the landlord advised this Service that it had attended the resident’s property on numerous occasions. On inspection it found that the kitchen met the Decent Homes Standard and so a replacement was not required.However, the sink base unit and draw front had signs of water damage. It had offered to replace these, but the resident had allegedly refused as it could not obtain an exact match of colour. It believed that the resident allegedly wanted a new kitchen as one of her neighbours was having their kitchen replacedas part of a planned replacement programme.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to her kitchen, and her subsequent request for a kitchen replacement

15. Section B (3) of the tenancy agreement sets out that it is the landlord’s obligation to repair kitchen units, keep them in good repair and keep them in proper working order, and the landlord has not disputed that this was its responsibility.
16. The landlord has stated that the reason why the resident’s kitchen was not eligible for renewal until 2030, was because the kitchen had met the criteria for being classed as “decent” as defined in the Decent Home Standard. This meant that it could make repairs to the resident’s kitchen rather than replace it, while it remained to be classed as “decent”.
17. Section 4.4 of the Decent Home Standard states that a property will be classed as a decent home if it has reasonably modern facilities and services. In relation to a kitchen, it states that in order to be classed as reasonably modern, a kitchen must meet two conditions:
    1. It must be 20 years old or less; and
    2. It must be a kitchen with adequate space and layout.
18. The landlord’s records show that the resident’s kitchen was replaced in 2010; therefore, her kitchen was less than 20 years old. The resident has not made a complaint about the size and/or layout of the kitchen, and therefore, there is no reason to believe that the kitchen failed to meet condition “b”. This means that under the Decent Home Standard, the resident’s kitchen would be classed as “decent”, and therefore, there was no obligation upon the landlord to replace the kitchen until 2030, as long as it remained “decent”.
19. Section 5.8 of the Decent Home Standard covers building components. Internal services and amenities are classified as building components and one example given is a kitchen. Therefore, the resident’s kitchen would be classified as a building component.
20. Annex “A”, section 3 of the Decent Home Standard, states that during a stock condition survey, the landlord should assess the extent to which individual building components require immediate work. Its judgement should be used to assess whether the components should be classified as in poor condition at the time of inspection or not. Where a component requires some work, repair should be prescribed rather than replacement unless (the relevant condition in this case):
    1. the component is sufficiently damaged that it is impossible to repair.
21. Annex “A”, section 3 of the Decent Home Standard, goes on to state that the definition of ‘poor condition’ in relation to a kitchen is where there is a major repair needed or where there is a need to replace three or more items out of six (cold water drinking supply, hot water, sink, cooking provision, cupboards, worktop).
22. The landlord’s inspection of the resident’s kitchen found that there was only cosmetic damage to one of the resident’s kitchen units. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately when it determined that repairs should be prescribed in relation to the resident’s kitchen, rather than a kitchen replacement, because her kitchen would not be defined as being in ‘poor condition’, under Annex “A”, section 3 of the Decent Home Standard.
23. According to the landlord’s property management policy, under “standard 14: consultation and choice”, where possible, the landlord will offer the resident a meaningful choice of products. The implication is that where it is not possible to offer this, there will be a limited choice. In this case the kitchen units that were in situ in the resident’s kitchen had been discontinued. The landlord had advised that it had waited for matching units to become available; however, none had. Therefore, the only option available to it was to replace the damaged unit with a unit that would not match with the rest of the resident’s kitchen. The landlord acted reasonably by firstly waiting to see if any matching units became available, and it acted reasonably by subsequently offering to replace the damaged kitchen unit with a non-matching one, once it became apparent that this was its only repair option.
24. The landlord advised this Service that the resident had allegedly refused its offer to replace the damaged unit with a non-matching unit. However, the landlord had acted appropriately by advising the resident that its offer still stood if she changed her mind.

Determination

25. Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to her kitchen, and her subsequent request for a kitchen replacement.