London Borough of Barnet (202305686)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305686

London Borough of Barnet

25 February 2025

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 installation of a new kitchen in the resident’s property.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the local authority landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord has recorded that the resident has no vulnerabilities.
3. The landlord fitted a new kitchen in the resident’s home on the 7 March 2023. The resident was unhappy with the workmanship and raised snagging issues with the landlord. When she did not agree with the landlord’s proposed remedial works, she asked her local councillor to intervene, who contacted the landlord on her behalf.
4. On 14 April 2023, the landlord provided an update following a handover visit on 11 April 2023. It said it was scheduling works to install an extractor fan and replace piping, however other matters had been agreed with the resident and it had arranged an appointment for snagging for 26 April 2023.
5. The landlord sent follow up correspondence to the councillor following its attendance on 26 April 2023. It provided a list of the snagging works that it had completed which included minor sealing work and trim installation, changing piping, replacing the sink and the threshold bar at the staircase footing. It said that it had raised further works to replace a section of flooring and make good the cupboard and cabinet backings. It would be contacting the resident during the week of 9 May 2023 to arrange the works. The resident had said that she did not want the extractor fan installed, but the landlord explained that this was a requirement in its properties.
6. On 16 May 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. She said that:
   1. the inside of the top and bottom cupboards had cracks on the back of them and she wanted them replaced
   2. she did not want an extractor fan fitted
   3. there were small dents on the outside edges of the top cupboard doors
   4. one of the drawers was making a noise when she opened and closed it, and another drawer was chipped
   5. part of the kitchen floor needed to be re-laid
   6. the fire alarm had an exposed black screw or nail
   7. contractors had fitted a metal bar across the bottom of the stairs against her wishes
   8. the bottom plinths of the cupboards have gaps between them, and she wanted contractors to fill the gaps
7. On 2 June 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to ask to extend the deadline for its stage 1 complaint response to 6 June 2023. The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of the letter. On 7 June 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said that:
   1. in the first instance, the landlord would usually make good the works and it had filled the cracks on the inside of the cupboards
   2. it would not replace the cupboards unless it considered that the making good process was ineffective in resolving the issue
   3. extractor fan installation was standard when fitting kitchens as the landlord is committed to take proactive steps to ensure its properties had proper ventilation to prevent mould
   4. it agreed to replace the cupboard doors but not the whole cupboard units
   5. it would inspect the drawers and would look at any new issues raised in the complaint at the same time
   6. it was returning to replace the flooring as previously agreed
   7. it would not remove the metal bar across the stairs or fill gaps across the cupboard plinths as they had been fitted as standard
8. The resident escalated her complaint on 28 June 2023 as she did not agree with the proposed works. On 21 July 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said that:
   1. its usual practice would be to make good on items reported as being defective
   2.  it had raised works for items to be made good
   3. it had not been able to gain access to the property recently and that its contractors would be contacting her within the next 10 working days to arrange new appointments

Post complaint

9. The landlord’s internal correspondence from August 2023 said that it had tried to follow up snagging works with the resident on several occasions unsuccessfully. When the landlord did contact the resident, it arranged a new visit on 23 August 2023 when it raised further works. The landlord told the resident that works were under warranty and that there was a defects liability period until March 2024 when it could address any other items raised. It agreed that the works would go ahead in October 2023.
10. The landlord scheduled the works on 24 November 2023 because of delays with the supply of materials and contractor availability. The works did not go ahead on that date as planned as the resident was unhappy that the landlord had not provided floor coverings, and not all the works could be completed on that day. There were delays in rearranging works due to the resident’s availability. The contractor attended on 19 December 2023. It completed the outstanding works on 16 February 2024.
11. The resident was unhappy with the outcome of her complaint, and she referred it to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s installation of a new kitchen in the resident’s property

12. As part of our investigation, the Ombudsman is not able to make a finding as to the quality of the works undertaken by the landlord. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider the landlord’s response to any issue of quality once the resident had raised it and the action then specifically taken by the landlord to address this. 
13. At the date that the resident had made her complaint, snagging works were in progress. Contractors had already addressed some of the items raised by the resident. The landlord was also scheduling further works.
14. This Service has reviewed the landlord’s repairs logs and communications and cannot see that the resident had reported to the landlord that she was unhappy with the fitting of the kitchen drawers, plinths and fire alarm prior to making her complaint. Therefore, the landlord was entitled to treat these issues as a service request, rather than a complaint.
15. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says that “A service request is a request from a resident to the landlord requiring action to be taken to put something right. Service requests are not complaints, but must be recorded, monitored, and reviewed regularly. A complaint must be raised when the resident expresses dissatisfaction with the response to their service request.”
16. Notwithstanding this, the landlord did address the items in its complaints responses. It arranged an inspection, raised works, and arranged appointments within a reasonable time. Where it did not meet the resident’s requests, it provided an explanation for this in its complaint responses.
17. The resident’s main complaint appears to be around the landlord’s decision to make good rather than renew the cupboard units, to install the extractor fan and to either not replace or not refit items such as the plinths and the staircase threshold bar.
18. The Ombudsman recognises that social landlords have limited resources and must managing them effectively, for the benefit of all its residents. The landlord’s obligations are to ensure the kitchens in its properties are in good repair and fit for purpose.
19.  It is reasonable, therefore, for the landlord’s starting point to be making good defects rather than renewing items, this being the most resource effective means of resolving an issue for a resident.
20. The landlord did inform the resident that, should problems persist after it had made good the repairs, it would review whether it could replace the units. This was a reasonable and fair response. The Ombudsman acknowledges, however, that the resident was disappointed and frustrated by the proposed course of action. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the fitting of the kitchen units, she should contact the landlord to request that it undertakes a new inspection.
21. The resident said that she did not want an extractor fan fitted on the basis that there was no condensation or mould in her kitchen. Building regulations require that extract ventilation be fitted in kitchens, utility rooms and bathrooms.
22. The landlord has a responsibility to maintain its housing stock. Its Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy says that it will undertake improvement works to manage and control condensation dampness, with a focus on preventing damp and mould in the first instance. The landlord told the resident that she could override the extractor fan by turning it off at the switch if she did not intend to use it.
23. It was necessary therefore for the landlord to install an extractor fan in the kitchen. In doing so, the landlord was able to meet its commitments towards its residents that it would be proactive in combatting condensation, damp and mould. This did not cause detriment to the resident as its use was optional.
24. The resident said that she was unhappy that there were gaps between the plinths. The landlord was entitled to rely on the professional views of its competent staff and contractors who had inspected the works and concluded that they were completed to a suitable standard. While the kitchen design and installation may not have met with the resident’s expectations, the kitchen was functional and the landlord’s response that it had been installed as standard, was reasonable.
25. Some appointments did not go ahead as scheduled due to supplier issues with materials and contractor availability. These delays were outside of the landlord’s control, however it was proactive in chasing contractors for an update to ensure that the contractors rearranged appointments as soon as this was possible.
26. There were delays due to contractors not being able to access the property. While the Ombudsman does not question the resident’s reasons for not allowing access, any delays due to this would be outside of the landlord’s control.
27. Overall, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord took reasonable steps to respond to the resident’s requests that it complete snagging works. Where it did not follow the resident’s request, it provided a reasonable explanation for this. In the Ombudsman’s view the landlord followed its policies and procedures, and therefore makes a finding of no maladministration.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of its installation of a new kitchen in the resident’s property.