Birmingham City Council (202231252)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231252

Birmingham City Council

22 October 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

The resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of his requests for kitchen refurbishment, which the resident believed amounted to discrimination.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The landlord is a local authority and the property is a bungalow. The resident has been living in the property with his wife since November 2018. They became secure tenants of the landlord in November 2019. The resident’s wife is partially sighted and reliant on a wheelchair for mobility. The landlord is aware of her disabilities.
The landlord carried out an audit of the void property in October 2018 before the resident moved in. It noted that the kitchen worktop was in “good condition” but there was no extractor fan.
The resident stated that in March 2022, a cupboard door in the kitchen door fell off and hit his wife in the head, giving her an aneurism. It is unclear from the records whether the resident reported this to the landlord at the time. There is no record of the landlord carrying out repairs for this.
On 25 November 2022, the resident’s wife called the landlord to say that “most of the kitchen was falling apart” and asked the landlord to look into its condition. According to the resident, the repairs team responded that the property was not on the programme for investment works, but it could offer repairs for the cupboards and other facilities in the kitchen.
The resident raised a complaint on 13 December 2022 to say that:
1. The kitchen was inadequate for his needs and those of his wife who had disabilities.
2. He was unhappy with the landlord not including the property on the list of capital investment works for kitchen refurbishments.
3. The landlord had offered him repairs which were not what he had asked for.
4. His neighbours had had their kitchens replaced already.
5. He believed there was discrimination against him and his partner on the basis of her disability.
6. The issues with the kitchen were that: there were no cupboards on the wall; the wall was not structurally sound; there were cracks on the ceiling; the work surfaces were old and worn; the fixtures were hanging off; there was a lack of power sockets; and the water taps were corroded, among other issues.
7. As an outcome, he would like the landlord to revamp his kitchen to its proper standards.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 3 January 2023 summarised as below:
1. It had checked and confirmed the property was not on the list of properties scheduled for kitchen upgrades for the financial year of 2022/23 due to budget limits.
2. It carried out stock condition surveys on a rolling basis, currently targeting older housing stock with the poorest layouts and prioritising inter-war properties.
3. When the resident’s property was due to be surveyed, it would notify the resident and arrange an appointment with a surveyor.
The resident called on 16 January 2023 to say that he remained dissatisfied with this outcome. He stated that the kitchen was unsafe for his wife to use and there was not enough physical space for it to be used practically. He said if someone was to carry out a survey it would be immediately apparent that the kitchen was not adequate for him and his wife to use on a daily basis.
The landlord reviewed the photos provided by the resident on 20 January 2023 and internally noted that:
1. The wall cupboard which fell off the wall and hit the resident’s wife had been possibly fitted poorly to the stud wall instead of the wall bearers. (The landlord did not dispute that the wall cupboard had fallen off and hit the resident’s wife.)
2. Some of the kitchen unit doors were falling off.
3. The worktops were chipped from knives.
4. There was one single plug socket outlet which was in the scorch zone.
5. The resident had fitted a further double socket with USB socket without permission, which needed to be rectified by retrospective permission, and a minor works certificate to confirm the wiring was not hazardous.
6. The kitchen may need a mechanical extractor although it had an open window and a trickle vent for ventilation.
7. The trickle vent may be faulty.
8. One of the water taps was corroded.
The landlord scheduled in repair works orders for the above issues for February 2023.
On 7 February 2023, the resident called the landlord to say a contractor had visited the property for repairs without prior notice. He was unhappy that the landlord booked repairs without obtaining his permission and without prior notice. He repeated that he wanted a new kitchen fitted rather than repairs. When the resident contacted this Service later in August 2023, he explained that he and his wife had been on their way out for hospital appointments when the contractors turned up without notice, and he asked the landlord to cancel all subsequent repairs, as any further such visits would be “unfair” and inconvenient to both the resident themselves and to the contractors.
The resident chased for a stage 2 complaint response on 20 and 21 February 2023. He was dissatisfied that the complaint handling officer had gone on leave without letting him know the response would be delayed.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 3 March 2023, summarised as follows:
1. The landlord’s position was that if its officers saw a repair issue or were alerted to a repair issue, it was their legal obligation to book a repair on its systems.
2. While the resident had the right to cancel repairs, if the landlord considered the repair issue to be urgent or dangerous, legally it must enforce the repair.
3. It stated the kitchen was audited in October 2018 as part of its void survey and was found to be in fair condition. It said the void survey had identified no works required for the kitchen. The surveyor had tested the electrics and a qualified electrician had issued a certificate.
4. The resident had made amendments to the property which required a minor works certificate and the landlord’s permission, for which he would need to fill in a form.
5. The landlord signposted the resident to this Service at the end of this letter.
The resident called the landlord on 6 March 2023. On the landlord’s call notes, he was stated as unhappy about his complaint being “disregarded” as the landlord did not pay “special attention” for his wife’s disability. He repeated that his wife’s needs had been ignored. He believed the kitchen was not repairable and asked for an assessment of its overall condition to be carried out as soon as possible.
The landlord provided a second stage 1 complaint response on 20 March 2023, summarised as follows:
1. It understood the resident wanted a new kitchen, however, in line with the conditions of tenancy, if something was repairable, it would not be replaced.
2. The resident had declined multiple repair jobs offered to him.
3. The resident should contact the Aids and Adaptations Team.
The resident called the landlord on 28 March 2023 to say he wanted to complain about staff conduct in their delay in providing a stage 2 response.
The landlord provided a second stage 2 complaint reply on 28 March 2023, summarised as follows:
1. It had received a complaint about the decision not to offer a kitchen refurbishment and was processing it as such.
2. It could see the resident previously complained about its staff being on annual leave.
3. It apologised to the resident for the delay in providing a response, however, its staff were entitled to take leave over the winter holidays.
The resident called on 24 July 2023 to raise a number of repairs issues (he said later to this Service he raised about 40 of them), some of which were a repeat of previously raised points:
1. The kitchen cupboard had fallen off the wall.
2. The kitchen unit doors were hanging off their hinges.
3. One or more water taps were corroded.
4. The kitchen ceiling was cracked.
5. The cooker socket was faulty and too close to the cooker, needing a relocation.
According to the resident, the landlord’s staff told him on this call that with the number and nature of repairs he was raising, it would be more appropriate for refurbishment rather than repairs. While the landlord had kept records of subsequent orders for repairs on its system, there is no detailed record of what was discussed on this call.
The landlord’s records showed that its contractors attended on 28 July, 2 August and 7 August 2023 for repairs, but could not gain access to the property.
The resident referred the matter to this Service on 4 August 2023 to say that:
1. He remained unhappy with the landlord’s decision not to offer refurbishments, and also with the landlord’s reply to him during the call on 24 July 2023 that his kitchen should be refurbished rather than repaired, which he felt was contradictory.
2. He remained unhappy that the landlord ordered repairs without seeking permission or giving him notice around January to March 2023.
3. The landlord delayed in providing a stage 2 reply around January to March 2023.
4. The landlord had told him to seek assistance from occupational therapists through the Aids and Adaptations department, which the resident had declined to do, since he believed that would prevent him from purchasing the property from the landlord in the future.
The resident called the landlord again on 21 November 2023 to again repeat his request for a kitchen refurbishment, and raised a complaint that he could not get through to the capital investment team.
The landlord provided a third stage 1 response on 23 November 2023 summarised as below:
1. It had been short-staffed and there was only one administrative person working on the capital investment team at the moment who could not always pick up calls. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
2. It said it was checking to see if it could arrange a home survey and would contact the resident about the date and time.
The landlord sent a surveyor on 20 March 2024 to inspect the kitchen. Following this survey, the landlord had set 31 March 2025 as its tentative new target date for refurbishment of the kitchen.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident had referred to his wife’s injury from a kitchen cupboard falling off the wall, which is not disputed by the landlord. The Ombudsman acknowledges this must have been distressing to the resident. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any medical or personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord had accepted three separate complaints from the resident, which were about the same issue – the landlord’s responses to the resident’s requests for kitchen refurbishments. This investigation will consider events starting from March 2022 until 20 March 2024, as during this time the landlord had given further responses and offered repairs and surveys which are directly related to the subject matter of the complaint.

Relevant guidance and policies

The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) states that social landlords, in particular local authorities, have a duty to keep housing conditions in their area under review, and inspect a property if they consider it appropriate to do so. Under these standards, a dwelling should be able to supply the basic needs for the everyday life of the range of households who could normally be expected to live in a dwelling of that size and type. It should not contain any deficiency that might give rise to a hazard which interferes with, or puts at risk, the health or safety, or even the lives, of the occupants.
The guidance further states that there should be an adequate number of appropriately sited electrical socket outlets. For a kitchen, the layout of facilities should ease the stages of preparation, cooking and serving; there should be suitable ventilation of the whole of the kitchen area, especially the cooking area; and there should be safe siting for cooking points away from flammable materials.
The Decent Homes standards state that the delivery of decent homes should not be an obstacle to landlords carrying out other work that falls outside the Decent Homes standard, but achieves other local priorities such as physical improvements to help provide for disabled persons’ adaptations.
The landlord’s own repairs policy highlighted the importance of adhering to the HHSRS standards in its stock condition surveys, surveys and repair programmes.
Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 imposes a duty on the landlord to make reasonable adjustments. The landlord may take reasonable steps to avoid any disadvantages presented by a provision, criterion or practice; take steps to avoid a disadvantage presented by a physical feature; or provide extra aids or services. Where a resident discloses a disability, the landlord should consider whether it can make an adjustment in its services to help the resident overcome the disadvantages experienced by a disadvantaged person. Organisations are only obliged to make adjustments when it is reasonable to do so. This Service may find service failure or maladministration if a landlord cannot demonstrate it properly considered whether adjustments were reasonable or should be made.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for kitchen refurbishment.

There is no dispute between the parties that in March 2022, the resident’s kitchen cupboard fell off the wall on which it was hanging and injured the resident’s wife. The landlord had since then noted internally on its records that this was possibly due to improper installation of the cupboard. While there is no record of the resident reporting it to the landlord at the time, the resident’s wife did report it on a call in November 2022 and the resident again referred to it in his complaint of December 2022.
The resident also reported a number of other hazards that indicated the kitchen may not have been compliant with standards under HHSRS (cracks on the ceiling, fixtures hanging off, a lack of power sockets, among others). While the resident did not refer to these standards himself, this should have alerted the landlord to attend the property for a HHSRS safety assessment, particularly in view of the fact the resident’s wife has known disabilities around vision and mobility. However, the landlord made no such arrangements. It only provided an explanation to the resident that the property was not listed for refurbishment.
The Ombudsman considers the lack of an assessment (from December 2022 to November 2023) indicates the landlord did not do enough to uphold the HHSRS standards, nor was it able to demonstrate that it considered the needs of the resident’s wife as a disabled person, as per the Equality Act 2010.
In follow-up to the resident’s complaint in December 2022, the landlord conducted an internal review of the photos sent by the resident and recognised that there were a number of potential hazards, including the location of the only power socket which was within the scorch zone, and the ventilations issues, as well as the resident installing a new socket by himself without permission which might have been hazardous. Having recognised these hazards, it arranged a number of repairs for February 2023, apparently without communicating with the resident beforehand or making appointments.
The resident then asked the landlord to cancel the repairs, as the landlord had made them without discussing with him beforehand or giving notice. The landlord’s later complaint responses referred repeatedly to the resident refusing to accept its offer for repairs. The landlord did not seem to have taken on board that one of the factors in the resident’s refusal of the repairs was that there was no proper communication. The multiple unexpected attendances by contractors would have caused inconvenience and frustration to the resident and his wife, who had to leave for hospital appointments and could not make themselves available. The lack of communication was not conducive to resolving the potential hazards in the kitchen, as already identified by the landlord at the time.
The landlord explained in its stage 2 response of 3 March 2023 that it had the statutory right and duty to “enforce” repairs where it had identified an urgent or potentially dangerous issue. The Ombudsman considers that, as the resident had already pointed out the lack of communication was a factor in his rejecting these repairs, the landlord could have apologised for this at the time and sought his consent to carry out repairs, which could have at least partially mitigated the situation. The landlord’s communication that it could legally “enforce” repairs against the resident’s wishes might be factually correct, but was possibly not conducive to maintaining a relationship of trust with the resident. There was no follow-up to this statement and no further offer or order for repairs, despite the landlord recognising that several aspects of the kitchen remained potentially hazardous.
The resident asked for an assessment of the overall kitchen condition on 6 March 2023, which the landlord failed to address in subsequent complaint responses, only repeating that it would not offer a refurbishment and the resident had declined the repairs it offered.
It is positive that after further complaints from the resident, the landlord conducted an assessment in March 2024. Having done this, it had tentatively listed the resident’s property for a kitchen refurbishment in March 2025. This should at least partially mitigate the resident’s concerns, however, the Ombudsman considers the landlord should have offered this survey or a HHSRS assessment by March 2023 (which is when the resident first requested an assessment of the kitchen), if not earlier.
The landlord acted appropriately in signposting the resident to the Aids and Adaptations team in its response of 20 March 2023. One of the functional roles of this department is to consider the physical disabilities of residents, and what the landlord could offer in terms of reasonable adjustments of facilities, as per its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010. The resident has explained to this Service he did not take this option, due to his concerns that receiving this aid would block him from purchasing the property in the future.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord acted appropriately in this aspect. While there was no obligation on the landlord to take into account the resident’s personal wishes for a future purchase when raising repairs or refurbishments, in the interests of re-establishing trust between the resident the landlord, the Ombudsman will recommend that the landlord contact the resident to discuss his concerns and the potential implications of making adaptations to the property for disabilities on any future purchase.
Overall, with regards to the landlord’s obligations under the Equality Act 2010, based on the evidence provided, it is the Ombudsman’s view that while the landlord did properly signpost the resident to the Aids and Adaptations team in March 2023, in response to the resident’s complaint in December 2022, it should have offered an HHSRS assessment of the overall kitchen condition then or shortly afterwards. In doing this assessment it should have considered the resident’s wife’s disabilities and whether the kitchen layout and facilities were safe and adequate for her use. Failing to do so indicates the landlord did not give proper consideration to its duties under the Equality Act.
Due to the reasons set out above, there is maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for kitchen refurbishments, in particular due to the excessive delay in making an assessment in line with HHSRS guidance and lack of communication over repairs.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that there should be two stages to the landlord’s internal complaint process, following which the landlord should signpost the resident to this Service if they wish to further pursue their complaint. Once the complaint was accepted, the landlord should respond to the complaint within 10 working days (stage 1). If the complainant asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 (the final stage), it should respond within 20 working days. If the landlord anticipated a delay in providing a response, it should agree on an extension with the resident.
The landlord had accepted 3 separate complaints from the resident concerning the same issues from December 2022 to November 2023. Throughout this process, the substantial issue of the resident’s complaint remained the same. The landlord had signposted the resident to this Service as early as 3 March 2023 in its first stage 2 response. The resident did not bring the complaint to this Service at the time but elected to make another complaint to the landlord.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord should have recognised the resident was essentially making a duplicate complaint in March 2023 and referred the resident to this Service again, instead of restarting the complaints process. This caused more time and trouble and frustration for the resident.
There was also an issue with a delay in providing a stage 2 response in March 2023. The landlord has acknowledged that there was a delay in doing so, however, it simply stated that its staff were on leave during the winter holidays and did not recognise that if that had been the case, it should have communicated with the resident about an extension and managed his expectations. Failing to do so caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
Due to the reasons set out above, there is a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for kitchen refurbishments, including a lack of proper consideration of its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to provide a written apology to the resident to acknowledge the failings identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to write to the resident to confirm its plan for kitchen refurbishments and timescales for carrying out the works.
Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to pay to the resident £800, broken down as follows:
1. £600 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by excessive delay in conducting an assessment of the kitchen’s condition and lack of communication.
2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to discuss his concerns around the policy and procedures for seeking aids and adaptations, and what are the potential implications on any future purchase of the property.