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

Eastlight Community Homes Limited (202305407)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305407

Eastlight Community Homes Limited

12 June 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.

Complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that her kitchen needs renewing.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, and has lived in the 3-bedroom, semi-detached property since 2019.
  2. In August and September 2022, the resident twice reported cracks on the walls in the property and loose tiles in the bathroom. A surveyor then carried out an inspection in early October 2022, and jobs were raised for repairs in the bathroom.
  3. The resident complained by telephone in mid-December 2022 that the landlord had not completed some of the bathroom works. She also complained that the kitchen was old and the flooring unsafe for her visually impaired child.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 17 January 2023, it said that, according to its database, the resident’s kitchen and bathroom were due for renewal in 2024. The landlord advised that the surveyors inspection results in 2022 did not show that they needed replacement sooner. It also acknowledged delays in replacing the bath panel, but indicated the retiling work was satisfactory.
  5. On 17 January 2023, the resident complained that the kitchen flooring needed replacing urgently because it posed a slip hazard for her partially sighted child. She also complained that she had been advised in the past by a surveyor that her kitchen would be recommended for renewal in 2023. The resident also re-raised her concern about the retiling in the bathroom. She asked the landlord to appoint someone to inspect all the issues she had reported.
  6. The landlord said in its response of 23 March 2023 that the kitchen was not due to be renewed until 2030 and apologised for the incorrect information it had given previously. The landlord said that, while there were some loose sections of worktops that required replacing, there was no evidence the kitchen was in a poor state overall. It offered to replace the kitchen flooring and worktops. In terms of the bathroom repairs, the landlord acknowledged there were avoidable delays and that the resident had been inconvenienced by having to accommodate multiple visits which were either unnecessary or could have been combined. It offered compensation of £250, agreed to undertake outstanding works, and said it had shared learning with the repairs team.
  7. After the landlord’s complaints process, a repairs manager visited the resident’s property on 24 May 2023 and reported that the kitchen appeared to be older than recorded on their database. They recommended further improvements to the kitchen and bathroom. Photographs of the kitchen and bathroom were taken on 12 July 2023 showing the completion of the works.
  8. The resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint because she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her reports that the kitchen is old and should be renewed. The resident is seeking for the landlord to modernise the kitchen, which she maintains is in poor condition.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Originally when the resident referred her complaint to this Service in May 2023, she was unhappy with the time it was taking the landlord to undertake the works to the kitchen and bathroom outlined in its stage 2 response. Subsequently, she advised that she is satisfied that the landlord has resolved her concerns about the bathroom. This investigation then focuses on the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports about the kitchen. Any reference to the resident’s bathroom is for context only.

Kitchen renewal

  1. The resident reported that there was possible subsidence and loose tiles in the bathroom on 26 August 2022 and 5 September 2022. The landlord instructed a surveyor to undertake an MOT of the property, which according to its website is a “health check” to ensure everything is in working order. This MOT likely happened on 12 October 2022, from the available evidence. After the inspection, repairs to the bathroom were raised.
  2. The resident complained on 19 December 2022 that the flooring in her kitchen was unsafe and that it was “falling apart”. She also complained that the kitchen was 30 years old. According to the records seen by this Service, this was the first time the resident reported that repairs were potentially required in the kitchen. In its stage 1 response of 17 January 2023 the landlord did not directly respond to the resident’s claim that the kitchen was 30 years old. Rather, it said that the renewal date was set for 2024. It also said a stock condition survey was undertaken on 2 December 2021, but whether this informed when the renewal date was set is not known. Further, the landlord advised in its stage 1 that the surveyor who carried out the MOT inspection did not advise that the kitchen required renewing sooner, although the surveyors report was not included in the evidence seen.
  3. The landlord’s renewal standard says it aims to replace kitchens after 20 years, which the Government’s Decent Homes Standard defines as the age a kitchen starts to become old. Like the Government guidance recommends, the landlord also takes the condition of a kitchen into consideration when deciding whether to renew it. Therefore, the landlord’s response was reasonable in view of the fact recent inspections had not found the kitchen to be in poor condition.
  4. While the landlord did not find that the kitchen was in need of replacement, it has an obligation to undertake repairs, so it is expected to investigate where issues are raised. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it had instructed a carpenter to inspect and repair the kitchen flooring. It did not though agree to repairs in the rest of the kitchen. While there were no specific repair problems recorded, other than the flooring, for the landlord to inspect, there is no evidence it checked with the resident before issuing the stage 1 response. The landlord did though subsequently inspect the kitchen for repairs, which this report will return to.
  5. The resident made it clear in her escalation to stage 2 on 17 January 2023, that replacing the flooring was her priority. She explained it was fitted by the previous tenant and was inappropriate for a kitchen because the floor became slippery when wet. According to the tenancy agreement, the landlord is not responsible for the floor coverings in the property because they are classed as “gifted items”, presumably because they were left by the previous tenant. There was also no indication at that point that the floor was damaged. However, the landlord’s agreement to inspect the flooring was appropriate in the circumstance because the resident said the floor was unsafe for her visually impaired child.
  6. The landlord has an aids and adaption process for residents with a physical need and who require changes to make a property safe. It aims to complete minor adaptations within 28 days, the same as its routine repair timescale, and more complex works do not have a defined timescale. A contractor assessed the resident’s flooring and other outstanding works on 27 January 2023, although their findings are not in the evidence provided. An assessment was also undertaken by an occupational therapist on 12 February 2023, who recommended slip resistant flooring in the kitchen.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 14 March 2023 said the contractor who assessed the floor found no damage to the sub floor. It agreed though to repair it if there was an issue found on taking up the flooring it was replacing. It did not provide a timescale for the repair, but said it was looking to schedule works to minimise the disruption to the resident. The records indicate that the landlord replaced the kitchen flooring sometime in June 2023, around 6 months after the resident reported it as a potential problem. There were no considerable gaps in the timeline of events where the landlord was not doing something to progress the repairs. As advised in the stage 2 response, it also sought to group works together to reduce the inconvenience to the resident. In the circumstances then, the timeliness of the flooring replacement was not unreasonable.
  8. In the stage 2 response, the landlord advised that the kitchen was fitted in 2010 and was therefore due for renewal in 2030. It apologised for the “false impression” it had given that the kitchen would be renewed sooner. It said that the kitchen had been inspected by a carpenter and it was not found to be in a poor state. However, a loose worktop had been identified and it offered to complete this with the other work it had previously agreed to undertake. While the landlord’s asset data was not provided to this Service, the evidence shows that after the complaint ended the resident challenged the date the landlord said the kitchen was fitted. A repairs manager then carried out an inspection of the kitchen on 24 May 2023 and they agreed that it was likely older than recorded. The repairs manager agreed to replace some of the wall units, in addition to the worktops.
  9. As previously mentioned, the landlord’s standard for renewal is to aim to replace a kitchen after 20 years. It remains unclear how old the resident’s kitchen is, but it seems likely that the date it gave in the stage 2 response is wrong. It is understandable then that the resident is frustrated with the landlord’s communication over how old her kitchen is. However, the landlord’s standard states its decision to renew a kitchen is also based on the condition of it. So, whether the kitchen is over 20 years old is only one factor in its decision making.
  10. The resident advised that the work the landlord carried out improved the look of the kitchen, but it remains in a poor state. On the contrary, the evidence shows that the landlord has inspected the kitchen and has not found it to be beyond repair. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of their qualified operative in deciding if there were repairs it could undertake to extend the life of the kitchen. Nothing in the information provided by the resident undermines the landlord’s findings. 
  11. The landlord has inspected the condition of the kitchen and not found it to be in a poor state. It is understandable that the resident is disappointed because the landlord has given contradictory information about when the kitchen is likely to be renewed. However, the landlord has met its obligations under the tenancy agreement to repair and maintain the kitchen so it is in a usable condition. Its actions were reasonable to put things right in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has taken action which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the kitchen needs renewing.