Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202115538)
Back to Top
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202115538
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
26 May 2022
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
Background
- The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident has a visual impairment.
- The resident reported a leak into a cupboard in her property on 31 July 2021. She was asked by the landlord as to whether the leak was uncontainable and advised that she was not sure due to her visual impairment. She called the landlord later that day as no one had attended to remedy the leak and was told that the repair was not considered an emergency as the resident had not confirmed whether it was uncontainable. An operative attended on 1 August 2021 and resolved the leak which was found to be coming from the piping of the bath in the property above the residents.
- In August 2021, the resident raised a complaint as she was dissatisfied with the time taken to attend to the leak and wanted compensation for her personal items which had been damaged as she did not have her own home contents insurance. She also raised concern as to whether the leak from the property upstairs had been resolved. Over the course of the complaint, the resident also raised separate concerns related to repairs needed to her bathroom following flooding in January 2020. The landlord discussed the complaint with the resident on several occasions, prior to providing its stage 1 response.
- On 16 August 2021, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It apologised for any miscommunication during the initial phone call it had with the resident on 31 July 2021. It explained that it had asked the resident whether the leak was containable to determine the seriousness of the leak before deciding the timescale for attendance and explained that if a resident confirmed that a leak was containable, it would not class the repair as an emergency. As the resident had not confirmed whether the leak was uncontainable, a contractor had not been dispatched at the time. It apologised that this was not made clear to the resident at the time and that the advisor had not used their discretion to prioritise the work in view of the resident’s visual impairment.
- The resident remained dissaitfied and escalated the complaint. Again, through September 2021, the landlord discussed the outstanding issues with the resident. On 24 September 2021, it responded at stage 2 and acknowledged that the resident felt that it should have attended sooner due to previous leaks and admitted that it needed to look at how it dealt with issues of recurring leaks over an extended period. It confirmed that where a property experienced more than a set number of leaks over a period of time, the issue would be escalated to a senior surveyor or manager moving forward.
- It noted it had visited the property and agreed to plaster and redecorate the hallway which had been damaged. It explained that the resident would need to be temporarily moved from the property (decanted) during the works and it would be completing works to the resident’s bathroom at the same time. It also confirmed that it would be attending the upstairs property to determine if further works were needed. It explained that damage to personal belongings as a result of a leak would usually be dealt with as an insurance claim, but understood that the resident did not have her own contents insurance. It said it had exercised its discretion and considered this when offering compensation. The landlord offered £250 compensation in recognition of resident’s personal items which had been damaged by the leak and the overall distress and time and trouble experienced by the resident.
- The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord. She also wanted the repairs to be completed. The landlord has advised that following its stage two complaint response, the resident raised another complaint about its handling of her decant and the subsequent repair works. It said it responded to this complaint in December 2021 and offered an additional £250 compensation which related to both complaints to reflect the impact of the initial leak and its handling of the subsequent decant.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The landlord has advised that the resident raised a separate complaint regarding its handling of the resident’s decant and repairs which has completed its internal complaints procedure. As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the Service, this report will not be making any assessment on the matter. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response on this matter, she may approach this Service with her new concerns for further investigation. As such, this report will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak and the compensation offered. This report will not investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant or repairs to her bathroom and hallway.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and her subsequent request for compensation for items damaged by the leak.
- The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord would be responsible for repairs needed to the installations for the supply of water, including pipes. The resident would usually be responsible for the internal decoration of the property. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out various timescales and priorities for completing repairs. Critical repairs, where there is a serious safety hazard should be attended to within 4 hours. Emergency repairs, including burst pipes, should be attended to within 24 hours. Urgent repairs, including those to minor leaks that could be contained should be attended to within five days. Planned repairs, such as replacement of bathtubs and sinks should be attended to within 90 days.
- The landlord would be expected to take into consideration a resident’s vulnerabilities when determining the timescale for a repair. The repairs policy also advises residents to take out home contents insurance to insure their personal possessions and decorations against damage or loss. Claims for damaged items would usually be dealt with outside of the landlord’s complaints and compensation process as an insurance claim.
- In this case, the resident raised concern that a contractor was not sent within the landlord’s critical or emergency timescales. The resident initially reported a leak into her cupboard on 31 July 2021 and was asked whether the leak was containable. It is noted that the resident was not able to provide this information and an appointment was not booked. The records show that the repair was attended the following day, within the landlord’s repair timescales for leaks that could be contained. Ultimately, the resident was not significantly inconvenienced by the delay as the leak was found to be containable, within black bags, with the contractor reporting minimal damage. However, given that the resident was unsure whether the leak was containable due to her disability, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have prioritised the repair. The landlord has acknowledged its failure to clearly communicate with the resident or explain why it was asking the resident to provide this information. It has also appropriately acknowledged that it should have used its discretion to prioritise the repair.
- It was initially reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to raise a claim via her home contents insurance for any damaged items as a result of the leak as it would be the resident’s responsibility to ensure that her personal items were insured against damage in line with the landlord’s repairs policy and tenancy agreement. Given that the resident advised that she did not have home contents insurance, it was reasonable for the landlord to provide further information about its preferred insurance provider so that the resident could insure her belongings moving forward. It was also reasonable for the landlord to take into consideration that the resident did not have her own insurance when considering the compensation offered, although it was not strictly obliged to do so under the terms of its compensation policy.
- Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of being fair, putting things right and learning from outcomes. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It put things right by awarding £250 compensation in recognition of the impact on the resident and her damaged personal belongings. The compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance which states that amounts in this range are proportionate where there has been service failure, but this was of a short duration and did not significantly impact the outcome of the complaint, which in this case was reasonable. The landlord demonstrated that it learnt from outcomes by changing its internal processes to ensure that where there are multiple leaks within a set period, the matter would be escalated to a senior surveyor or manager.
- For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
Determination