Canterbury City Council — case 202501668

Decision Case ID 202501668 Decision type Investigation Landlord Canterbury City Council Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 1 April 2026 Background The landlord carried out kitchen renovation works in September 2025. The resident reported concerns about the contractors’ workmanship, including damage to her patio, carpet mats, tumble dryer and oven, and the removal of the cooker hood without its return. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the kitchen renovation works and the associated damage.

Our decision (determination) There was reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolved the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the kitchen renovation works and the associated damage. Reasons The landlord is responsible for kitchen repairs and replacements. The tenancy agreement states that if a resident believes the landlord is responsible for any damage to their belongings, the claim will be dealt with by its insurance team. The kitchen renovation contract said that: The resident was responsible for removing all appliances before the work commenced.

If she could not move the appliances, the contractors would do so for her. However, the landlord would not take any responsibility for any damage caused as a result, or any damage caused during the renovation works. The renovation would take 15 working days. The resident would have limited use of the kitchen during that time. In both of the landlord’s complaint responses, it appropriately acknowledged that the works overran by 8 days, which left the resident without a fully functioning kitchen for longer than agreed.

The landlord also accepted the contractors had not adequately protected the property during the works, which caused inconvenience to the resident. The resident replaced the cooker hood herself, at a cost of £79. She also made a claim through her own insurance for the damaged cooker and tumble dryer, but there was no excess to pay. However, her 3 carpet mats had not been replaced and could not be repaired. Lastly, while the landlord offered to send a contractor to jet wash the front patio, this was inconvenient to the resident due to weather conditions.

The landlord’s offer was reasonable, and now that weather conditions have improved, we have made a recommendation in relation to this. The landlord accepted fault in relation to the damage caused to the resident’s belongings, and it should have referred her to its insurance team as per its policy. Nonetheless, the landlord offered £650 compensation in total, which is in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance for circumstances where a failure had a significant impact.

The offer was proportionate to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the poor workmanship, the costs she has incurred and will incur to replace all the damaged items, as well as any additional costs to her water bill, should she accept the landlord’s offer to send a contractor to jet wash her front patio. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right.

We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations The landlord should pay the resident the £650 compensation it offered during the complaints process, if it has not already done so. This is because we have found reasonable redress on the basis that it pays this. The landlord should contact the resident to arrange for it to visit the property and clean the front patio as it offered in its complaints process, should the resident agree.