London Borough of Lewisham (202117071)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117071

Lewisham Council

17 June 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:
   1. response to requests to replace kitchen units.
   2. handling of the complaint.

Background

2. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority. She occupies a 4-bedroom house.
3. On 22 March 2021 the resident explained to the landlord that a plumber had attended and told her she needed new kitchen units as the sink units were currently rotten due to a leak. She asked for a date when the new kitchen units would be fitted. The landlord responded that a new sink base unit was needed, and it would attend on 31 March 2021 to assess the situation. The inspection found the kitchen units were in very good condition and only required minor repairs.
4. On 22 April 2021 the resident made a formal complaint. She said that the units in her kitchen were cheap and kept falling apart. She was concerned that repairs would leave her with mismatched units and would not agree to further repairs. She wanted all her kitchen units replaced.
5. On 25 October 2021 the resident asked us for assistance. She said there were multiple defects in her kitchen units and, despite a number of repairs, they continued to fall apart. She said that an operative who had attended on 21 June 2021 to replace the sink base unit informed her that new kitchen units would be fitted, but this job was cancelled. We contacted the landlord on 23 March 2022 asking it to provide a stage 1 response. The landlord issued this on 27 April 2022. It said its contractor would repair the kitchen units and they would contact the resident to arrange an appointment.
6. In September 2022 the resident contacted us again and wanted to escalate the complaint. She said no new kitchen units had been installed nor had the landlord responded to communication in a timely manner. We contacted the landlord on 23 September 2022 asking for its final response.
7. The landlord issued its stage 2 final response on 9 February 2023. It said it had advised the resident in April 2021 that the kitchen units were in good condition and did not require renewal. It apologised that the complaint had been poorly managed, and it had not investigated the case thoroughly. It acknowledged it had provided misleading information and failed to provide timely updates. However, it explained it would not renew the kitchen units but would repair them on 17 February 2023.
8. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, she disputed the landlord’s findings and said there had been an agreement to replace the kitchen units. Following an inspection on 25 April 2025, the landlord again considered that the units did not need replacement. It added that repairs were required and explained that any replacement doors would not match the current ones as its provider no longer stocked this style. The resident said this was unacceptable and did not resolve her complaint. As an outcome, the resident wanted compensation and the landlord to fit all new kitchen units.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

9. Around February 2015 the landlord replaced the resident’s kitchen units under a major works programme. Around November 2020, the resident made an enquiry to the landlord about the quality of the kitchen units. In the resident’s complaint to us, she said she had pursued this matter for a number of years. While this may be the case, we will not look as far back as 2015. We think it would have been reasonable for the resident to raise a complaint about this issue at an earlier time, and the time that has since passed without her doing so would impact the Ombudsman’s ability to reliably assess the facts. The resident made a formal complaint about the kitchen units in April 2021. Accordingly, we will look at the relevant events from April 2021 to the landlord’s final response of February 2023, and any commitments it made.

The landlord’s response to requests to replace kitchen units

10. Under the landlord’s repair guide, it is responsible for repairs to kitchen cupboards and fittings installed by it. The guide also notes that if the landlord has to replace kitchen units or parts of a unit, it will try to match the colour where possible.
11. Landlords must keep a property in a safe and liveable condition and are allowed to meet this obligation through appropriate repairs rather than full replacement, unless full replacement is necessary to make the property habitable.
12. Following the resident’s report in March 2021, the landlord acted fairly by promptly arranging for a works supervisor to inspect the units. The inspection took place on 31 March 2021 where it found no new kitchen units were required but repairs were needed. This included doors to the base units, a door to the wall unit, and easing and adjusting two doors. It also said its records showed a new sink base unit was needed which it was willing to fit. This was a satisfactory approach and demonstrated the landlord was taking her concerns seriously. The outcome of this inspection was relayed to the resident on 21 April 2021. This was fair and appropriate.
13. After the resident’s formal complaint made on 22 April 2021, the landlord carried out repairs to the wall and base unit on 21 June 2021. The resident told us that the operative told her during this appointment that new units were needed. We have seen no evidence to support this, nor have we seen that the landlord agreed to replace all the kitchen units at any stage since March 2021.
14. On 4 July 2022 the landlord’s complaints administrator advised the resident by email that its contractor would be “replacing your kitchen” and would like to attend on 12 July 2022. This raised expectations for the resident that the landlord was willing to replace her kitchen units. The resident replied to the landlord by email the same day asking for clarification as to whether the kitchen units were to be replaced. However, the landlord did not reply to the resident’s email. This was inappropriate and caused uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident who felt ignored. While this would have not changed the overall outcome for the resident, the landlord’s communication was poor as it did not clarify its position until 8 months later.
15. The landlord’s final response of February 2023 accepted that her complaint had been poorly managed in that it had provided her with misleading information and did not provide timely updates. The landlord appropriately apologised for these service failures. It also explicitly set out that it would not agree to renew the kitchen units and offered to carry out the required repairs on 17 February 2023. The landlord was entitled to inspect the kitchen units following reports that the resident considered them defective. It was also entitled to rely on the opinion of its work supervisor that the units were in good condition and not in need of replacement.
16. Subsequently, in February and March 2023, the resident and landlord exchanged emails. The resident said there was a previous agreement to replace the kitchen units and that measurements and dates had already been given. The landlord reiterated that an inspection took place on 31 March 2021 which found the units were in very good condition. It also explained it had found no record of approval for units to be renewed. While it apologised for its miscommunication on 4 July 2022, its final response and further correspondence clearly set out its position that kitchen renewal was not required and that it was willing only to carry out repairs to the kitchen units. We have seen that the landlord subsequently made further attempts to inspect the units with the intention of carrying out the required repairs, but access was not provided. This was a reasonable approach from the landlord.
17. The resident was unhappy that the landlord offered to repair the kitchen units rather than replace them and felt that the landlord had reneged on a previous agreement to replace all the kitchen units. However, while she was provided with misleading information by the landlord and we acknowledge her concerns about this, the landlord’s decision to not replace the kitchen units was fair and appropriate. It had acted reasonably by inspecting the kitchen units on more than one occasion and offering targeted repairs. Where basic functionality is concerned, a repair would usually be enough to meet the landlord’s obligations, and in this case would have addressed the damage caused by a leak, making the units usable. We consider the landlord met its obligations by offering this solution. The landlord consistently explained this to the resident, and we have seen that she refused these repairs on several occasions. We have also seen the landlord arranged an appointment for repairs to the kitchen units for 24 June 2025; however, the resident advised us that she cancelled this as the case was under investigation by the Ombudsman. A recommendation has been made.
18. The resident also objected to the possible colour mismatch if the damaged kitchen units were repaired rather than the full set of units replaced. Following the landlord’s inspection on 25 April 2025, it explained a new kitchen was not required and that replacement doors would not match the current doors as its provider no longer stocked this style. This was a reasonable response. The landlord’s repair guides states it will seek to match units “where possible”, however this was not an option. While the Ombudsman can appreciate the resident’s frustration in having mismatched units, using a similar colour where an identical match is unavailable is appropriate and would not affect the function of the units or the use of the kitchen. The landlord could however have offered the resident the option of selecting her own style from those available from its supplier as a workaround.
19. Although the landlord was entitled to decline the resident’s requests to replace the kitchen units, it led the resident to believe that the kitchen would be replaced and did not provide any clarification despite being asked. This raised the resident’s expectations. The landlord recognised this service failure; however its apology did not go far enough to adequately put matters rights. We consider there was service failure in the landlord’s response to requests to replace kitchen units. Our remedies guidance suggests awards up to £100 where there was failure which was not put right. An order of compensation has been made below.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

20. At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a three stage complaints process:
    1. Stage 1 – where a written response will be issued within 10 working days.
    2. Stage 2 – where a written response will be issued within 20 working days.
    3. Stage 3 – where the complaint is seen by an independent adjudicator and a written response will be issued within 20 working days.
21. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code advises that ‘two stage complaint procedures are ideal. This ensures that the complaint process is not unduly long’. The landlord’s three stage complaints process would have meant that the resident had to wait at least a further 20 working days before she was able to exhaust the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord has since updated its complaints policy and from 1 February 2024 no longer uses three stages. However, in 2023, stage 3 was a mandatory part of the landlord’s internal complaints process. Due to delays in this case, we accepted the landlord’s stage 2 response as its final response to the complaint. 
22. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 22 April 2021. She felt the landlord’s attempts for further repairs to the kitchen units would “not hold”. However, the landlord failed to respond to this through its complaints process. This was a failing on the part of the landlord and the resident felt her concerns were being ignored. This also caused time and trouble for her as she approached the Ombudsman for assistance. Following contact from us on 23 March 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 April 2022. This was 24 working days later and outside its policy timescales. This was a further failing.
23. On 7 September 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman and wanted to escalate the complaint. We contacted the landlord on 23 September 2022 and again on 9 January 2023 asking for its final response. The landlord issued its stage 2 final response on 9 February 2023. This was considerably outside its policy timescales and the landlord missed an opportunity to escalate the complaint sooner. This delayed the resident getting a final response and caused her distress and inconvenience.
24. Overall, there were delays in providing its formal responses and the landlord failed to engage with the escalation request in a reasonable time. This likely undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord to satisfactorily resolve matters for her. The landlord also missed an opportunity to offer an apology or compensation for the delays across its formal responses. These were failings on the part of the landlord and an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a service failure which was minimal, of short duration, and may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to requests to replace kitchen units.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

27. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £200 made up of:
       1. £100 for the failings in its communication about the kitchen units.
       2. £100 for the failings in its complaint handling.
28. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman within 28 calendar days to confirm that it has complied with this orders.

Recommendations

29. The landlord should inspect the kitchen units and re-offer to repair them, should the resident wish. It should also consider offering the resident the option of choosing the style of replacement doors herself.
30. The landlord should review its staff training needs and ensure that it responds to resident emails in good time.