Wandle Housing Association Limited (202412505)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202412505

Wandle Housing Association Limited

5 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s decision to repair rather than replace the resident’s kitchen.
This investigation will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has lived in the property, a 3-bedroom house, since October 2021. She moved to the property via mutual exchange.
In July 2023 the resident reported that her kitchen was in a “really poor” state of repair and that units and drawers were “falling off”.
On 2 February 2024 the resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. It had told her in December 2023 that it would replace the kitchen on 6 January 2024.
2. She moved the contents of the kitchen into the front room in preparation and took unpaid time off work for the appointment.
3. An operative attended in January 2024 and said it was a 2-person job to complete the work. He said they would return on 2 February 2024 to “change the whole kitchen”.
4. When operatives attended in February, they said they would only replace the front of a drawer.
5. She had lost 2 days’ pay and had been unable to use the kitchen or front room.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 12 February 2024 and provided its response on 13 March 2024. It said:
1. Photos of the kitchen showed it to be in “good working condition and not in need of renewal”.
2. It would therefore not renew the kitchen but would carry out the “necessary” replacement of the drawer front. It had booked an appointment for 2 April 2024.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 14 March 2024. She said the stage 1 response did not address:
1. That it told her in December 2023 that it would replace the kitchen.
2. The outcome of the appointment in January 2024.
3. That the kitchen was “bare” and only had 2 floor cupboards.
4. The “dent” in the kitchen sink.
5. Her request for a full inspection of the kitchen.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 26 March 2024. On 15 April 2024 it apologised that it had been unable to provide a response due to “unforeseen resourcing issues”. It said it would be in touch as “soon as it [could]”.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 23 April 2024. It said:
1. It had told the resident in its stage 1 response that there was no record that it had told her it would replace the kitchen. It was not due to replace the kitchen until 2036.
2. Photos did not show the kitchen to be in a “state of disrepair”. It would therefore only carry out repairs.
3. It had attended to carry out repairs on “multiple occasions”. The resident had refused the repairs and she said the kitchen needed to be replaced. It had replaced the drawer front and there were no outstanding works. If there were any other repairs she could contact the repair team.
4. There had been no service failure.
The resident replied to the landlord and said:
1. Its stage 2 complaint response was “dishonest” and contained “false statements”.
2. She had not refused to let operatives complete any repairs.
3. The landlord had again failed to acknowledge that she was told that the kitchen would be replaced.
4. It had offered her £100 compensation for 2 days lost pay.
5. It had attended the appointment on 2 April 2024 but did not complete the repair. This meant she had lost a further day’s pay.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She said there were outstanding repairs to the kitchen and the landlord had not acknowledged that it had led her to believe it would replace the kitchen.
The complaint became one we could consider in December 2024.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord’s website states in reference to planned maintenance that it will carry out a stock condition survey to determine what works are required. It also says it replaces kitchens based on their current condition, not just on their age or whether it has replaced others in the area.
The landlord’s tenancy management policy says it will inspect all properties before granting permission to complete a mutual exchange.
The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaint within 20 working days.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In June 2024 this Service investigated another complaint (202231096) from the resident about the landlord’s handling of several repairs. This included repairs to the kitchen. The previous investigation considered events that took place between November 2021 and May 2023.
This investigation will not consider events in relation to the kitchen repairs that took place within this period, as these have already been decided upon. This report will consider events which occurred between May 2023 and the landlord’s final response in April 2024. We may however refer to events which took place outside of this period to provide context to the investigation.

The landlord’s decision to repair rather than replace the resident’s kitchen.

In July 2023 the resident reported that cupboard units and drawers were “falling off” in her kitchen.
The landlord booked an appointment for 29 August 2023 to assess the kitchen. The notes state that it would repair the kitchen if possible but that if it was in very poor condition, it would consider whether a replacement was required. The landlord shared this information with the resident.
The landlord’s communication was reasonable. The obligation on the landlord under the tenancy agreement, is to repair and maintain the kitchen. Installing a new kitchen would amount to an improvement or upgrade, and there is no obligation on the landlord to carry out such works. We acknowledge that landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly. Generally, landlords are not obliged to offer improvements or upgrades except where this is the only reasonable means of making a full and effective repair.
The records show that the landlord inspected the kitchen on 29 August 2023. It has not however provided a copy of the report.
The repair log for the appointment states that the kitchen was “repairable” and that it required a new drawer front, a new drawer case, and adjustments to a cupboard door. It said the resident “refused the work” and wanted a supervisor to attend to inspect the kitchen.
The landlord’s records indicate that operatives made the decision that the kitchen was repairable and that replacement was therefore not required. The landlord is within its rights to act on the advice of its qualified staff. We would however reasonably expect to see some form of assessment of the condition of the kitchen to support the surveyor’s decision. That we have not seen an inspection report or photographs of the kitchen is unreasonable and an example of poor record keeping.
Following the operative’s attendance in August 2023 the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with his conduct. She said the operative had said that she had “the hump” because he had said she did not need a new kitchen. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to this report. This Service would reasonably have expected the landlord to investigate and address these concerns by obtaining more details from the resident and speaking with the operative. That it did not do so was inappropriate.
In late October 2023 the resident contacted the landlord. She said a repairs supervisor had inspected the kitchen the day before. She said she had advised the supervisor that the previous tenant had “removed most of the cabinets in the kitchen”. The resident said the supervisor had told her that he would have to seek permission to have the missing cabinets replaced.
The information provided by the landlord contains no record of this inspection. We would reasonably expect the inspection to be logged on the landlord’s repairs system and to see an inspection report, ideally with photographs. It is unclear whether the landlord failed to make such records or if it did so and failed to provide them to this Service. Either way, this was unreasonable.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s communication or responded to her request that it approve replacing the cabinets. This was unreasonable and would have led to her feeling ignored.
We note that the resident moved into the property following a mutual exchange. She has stated that the previous tenant removed most of the kitchen cabinets. She said she only became aware of this after comparing the kitchens in neighbouring properties to her own.
When a resident completes a mutual exchange, they agree to accept the property as it is when they move in. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to explain this to the resident in response to her concerns that the previous tenant removed units. That it did not was unreasonable and a missed opportunity to manage her expectations.
Social housing landlords are required to ensure that their properties meet the Decent Homes Standard. One of the facilities required to meet this standard is a “kitchen with adequate space and layout”. This Service has not seen photographs or plans of the resident’s kitchen. It is therefore not clear what layout the kitchen has been left with and whether this is adequate.
We note however that the absence of adequate space and layout in the kitchen would not in itself cause a property to fail to meet the Decent Homes Standard. To do so a property must lack at least 3 facilities outlined in the guidance. We have seen no evidence that the property lacks any other such facility. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain this to the resident in response to her concerns. That it did not was a further missed opportunity.
On 1 November 2023 the landlord raised a repair to renew one drawer front, “overhaul” 5 cabinets, and replace the draining board. While it is not clear from the records, it appears the landlord raised this work following the supervisor’s inspection. As we have not seen a report from the inspection, we cannot determine whether the works raised were reasonable.
The repair records show that at some time the landlord raised a further inspection of the kitchen for 8 January 2024. It is not clear when it raised this order or that it informed the resident that the appointment was for an inspection.
On 8 January 2024 the resident told the landlord that someone had contacted her in December 2023 to book an appointment to fit a new kitchen. She said she had moved the contents of her kitchen to her front room and had taken a days unpaid leave from work but that no work had been completed.
We appreciate that moving the contents of her kitchen into the front room would have been time consuming and caused inconvenience to the resident. We have not however seen any evidence that indicates that she did so following instructions from the landlord. While we empathise with the resident’s situation, this cannot be attributed to a failing by the landlord.
On 2 February 2024 the resident reported that an operative attended. She said that based on previous communication with operatives she had been expecting that the appointment was to fit the new kitchen. She said instead the operative told her he was there to fit a new drawer front.
The works ticket said the appointment was to renew 1 drawer front, “overhaul” 5 cabinets, and replace the draining board. While the resident’s comments are not disputed, we have seen no other evidence that the landlord told the resident that it would be replacing the kitchen on this date. Therefore we cannot conclude that the landlord agreed to do so and then failed to follow through with its commitment.
On 7 February 2024 the resident telephoned the landlord asking for an update on the works required to the kitchen. It is not clear from the call log what information the landlord gave her. We cannot therefore assess whether its response was reasonable.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 19 February and said it had still not provided her with a full kitchen or replaced the broken cupboards. She said she would only communicate with the landlord by email due to conflicting verbal messaging previously. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to this communication or to the resident’s repeated statement that her kitchen was not “full”. This was unreasonable.
The landlord told the resident in its complaint responses of March and April 2024 that the kitchen was in good repair and that it would not therefore be replacing it. It is positive that it clearly communicated its decision. However, this Service considers that it should reasonably have explained this to the resident sooner. Instead, the resident had to pursue the landlord for 8 months asking it to complete the works. This caused her unnecessary time, trouble, and distress.
In May 2024 the resident told the landlord that there were still outstanding repairs to the kitchen. She has said that the sink had a dent and a cupboard was broken. She asked the landlord to carry out an inspection. Internal landlord emails show the landlord decided not to carry out an inspection as it said its previous inspections and photos showed the kitchen was in “good condition”. It is not clear whether the landlord communicated this to the resident. If it did not, this was inappropriate.
Inadequacies in the landlord’s records have prevented this Service from assessing whether its decision to repair rather than replace the kitchen was reasonable and appropriate. While the landlord carried out 3 inspections, we have not had sight of the associated reports.
Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) spotlight report states that if information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records so it can satisfy itself, the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman) that it took all reasonable steps to meet its repair obligations. In this case it has not.
Overall, the landlord:
1. Failed to provide adequate records to support its decision not to replace the kitchen.
2. Failed to communicate effectively with the resident its decision not to replace the kitchen.
3. Did not respond to several of the resident’s communications.
4. Did not engage with the resident to allow the repairs to be completed.
We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s decision to repair rather than replace the resident’s kitchen.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

It took the landlord 28 working days to provide a response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This greatly exceeds the 10 working-day timeframe outlined in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and its own policy.
The landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for this delay in its response. This was unreasonable.
While the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response clearly stated it would not be replacing the kitchen, it failed to address several of the issues raised in the resident’s original complaint.
The Code states that landlords must clearly address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord should therefore have responded to the resident’s statement that she had been informed previously that the kitchen would be replaced and that she had lost 2 days wages. That it did not address these points was unreasonable.
It took the landlord 27 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. We acknowledge that it contacted the resident to make her aware of the delay. The Code however states that when requesting an extension, the landlord must provide a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. It did not do so in this case as it said it would be in touch as “soon as [it could]”.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response again failed to address all the resident’s concerns. It did not mention that the resident said it had previously agreed to replace the kitchen or that she had lost wages. This was unreasonable.
Overall, the landlord:
1. Delayed in responding to the stage 1 complaint.
2. Failed to address all the points raised in the original complaint.
3. Did not give a clear timescale when requesting an extension to its response timeframe.
4. Failed to resolve the substantive issue.
We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s decision to repair rather than replace the resident’s kitchen.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. The landlord must apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £400 comprising:
  1. £250 for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience in relation to its decision to repair rather than replace the resident’s kitchen.
  2. £150 for time and trouble in relation to its complaint handling.
3. The landlord must carry out a full inspection of the resident’s kitchen. The inspection must take into consideration whether the kitchen has adequate space and layout. It should also consider whether units have been removed and whether this has impacted the use of the kitchen. The landlord should provide a copy of this report to this Service. It should then clearly explain in writing to the resident and this Service what works (if any) it intends to carry out.