Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202117496)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117496

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

6 February 2023

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 time the landlord had taken to complete the void works to the resident’s property and the changes to the bathroom which took place after the resident viewed the property.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling in this case.

Background and summary of events

The resident has had a secure tenancy since 5 July 2021 and lives in a 2-bedroom ground–floor flat with his son and his son’s wife. He has poor mobility which the landlord was aware of.
The resident viewed the property in April 2021, at that time the property had a bath in the bathroom. When he signed the tenancy agreement for the property in July, he noticed the bathroom was converted into a wet room and the bath was replaced with a level access shower (LAS).
The landlord states it carried out these works based on the local authority’s Occupational Therapy Service recommendations. However, the information the landlord provided to this service for this case indicates that the Occupational Therapist (OT) recommendations were for the property as an accessible property, rather than recommendations based on the resident’s individual assessed needs. A representative for the occupational therapy service confirmed:
the recommendation to fit a level access shower (LAS) was made by the OT for the Void, which was identified as an accessible property, prior to knowing who would be moving into the property as most people with any accessibility needs would be best able to access and use a washing facility if it was a level access shower rather than a bath.
The resident’s medical assessment makes no reference to him requiring a bath for any medical reasons, so it was and would be reasonable for the landlord to conclude that he would be able to access the washing facilities if it was a LAS.
On 9 and 10 July 2021, the resident made a formal complaint over the phone and by email about the condition of his property, he was concerned that:
The cooker was not working, and the toilet seat had not been changed.
The landlord was not taking his disability into consideration as there were no handrails in the bathroom, or mixer taps with levers in the kitchen and bathroom.
Some of the windows and window frames were still not painted and there was a leak in the boiler.
The bath was replaced with a shower and he needed a bath as he could not stand for a long period time due to his medical conditions. He requested the bath to be put back.
The landlord replied with its stage one complaint response on 23 July 2021, stating:
It visited the resident on 20 July to look into resolving the issues and found that the cooker/hob was in working order.
It confirmed that all the white goods in the property were gifted to the resident, including the cooker, which were the responsibility of the resident. Therefore it would not be replacing the cooker and it apologised if it did not make this clear in the sign-up process.
It arranged for its contractor to visit on 22 and 23 July to carry out the following works:
1. fixing the kitchen ventilator
2. resolving the noisy water tap
3. fitting a fuse in a fused spur
4. patching up a piece of floor
5. tidying some cables in a cupboard
6. replacing a door handle.
It would look into whether it could replace some of the radiators in the property and then inform the resident of its decision.
The windows would not be replaced ad hoc, and would be in the capital works programme.
Its adaptation officer contacted the resident on 22 July and advised he should contact adult social services about adding a handrail to the bathroom wall and putting back a bath in the bathroom.
Its voids team was told that the resident needed a lower-level shower, so it replaced the bath with a lower-level shower.
it apologised for the time it had taken to bring all the repair concerns to a successful resolution, upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £150 for the inconvenience and time and trouble the delays to repairs caused the resident.
On 30 July, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response, stating:
Some of the repairs were not completed, including the radiators were still not replaced and the bath was not reinstalled, which had caused him stress and inconvenience.
Whilst he appreciated the £150 the landlord offered as compensation, in addition to his distress and inconvenience he also received a bill for two weeks rent, which he attached to his email.
On 3 August 2021, the resident remained dissatisfied with the void works and reported to the landlord that:
the radiators were old and needed to be replaced.
the appliance which heated the water in the bathroom needed to be removed because he did not consider it to be safe.
the shower pump needed to be checked because the shower was leaking.
the rent he paid since his tenancy started needed to be refunded because the void works were not completed before this date.
On 6 August 2021, the landlord responded stating:
it acknowledged that sometimes repairs only presented themselves once residents moved into the property, confirmed that the property passed its post inspection and there was no issues that suggested that the property was uninhabitable or any other concerns that would have stopped the resident from moving in.
it would not refund the resident the rent he already paid as the reported repairs were addressed and in its stage one response it advised the resident that he would be compensated £150 for the inconvenience and trouble the delays to the void works had caused him.
The landlord’s contractors inspected the radiators at the property and their report dated 9 August 2021 noted that all radiators became hot within a reasonable amount of time, with no notable cold spots and they were in good condition. However the lounge, kitchen and bathroom radiators were under-sized and it was recommended the landlord replace them. The landlord subsequently approved the works.
The landlord attended the property on 13 August to investigate the resident’s outstanding concerns and reported that:
the resident was concerned that the shower pump was noisy which contributed to his depression and anxiety, and thought the landlord was there to remove it. The landlord advised it was there to ensure that everything was in working order and not to remove the pump and install a bath and advised the resident raise his concerns with his housing officer.
The resident wanted the electric shower removed as it was dangerous as “water and electric should not mix”. The landlord advised that the shower was safe to use. The landlord confirmed that there were no defects to the pump or shower.
On 27 August 2021, the resident asked for all radiators to be replaced as he was promised everything in the property would be new. The landlord agreed that it would look into the report and update the resident as to why it decided not to replace all of the radiators.
On 7 and 8 September 2021, the resident reported again his dissatisfaction with the lower level shower installation and confirmed that this was something that he never asked for nor was told it was going to happen. The landlord noted the conversation as follows:
It told the resident it had replaced the bath with the low-level shower based on the occupational therapist’s recommendations. The resident confirmed that he was in contact with Social Services but they did not “accept” that he required a bath.
It attended the property in August and confirmed that the pump was working correctly and no water leaks outside the shower area.
The resident wanted all radiators replaced but was advised that the rest of the radiators were in good working order, therefore would not be replaced.
The resident was not happy with the compensation offer of £150, as he believed that it did not cover all the stress and inconvenience he experienced as a result of the outstanding void repairs and wanted the compensation amount to be reviewed.
The resident was still living in temporary accommodation because there were no floor coverings at the new property and due to the low–level shower leaks and other plumbing works that needed to be carried out, he did not want to put new carpet down and damage it.
The resident would be emailing the complaints team the reasons why he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage one response.
The resident was concerned that, due to the location/depth of the shower, he cannot open the bathroom window.
On 16 September, the resident emailed the landlord, reiterating his previous concerns, and adding:
He needed a bath with a handrail fixed to a wall as he could not stand or sit on a chair due to his severe chronic back pain, which would also relieve the disturbance of the noisy pump which was contributing to his depression and anxiety.
He was electrocuted as a child and had a phobia of electricity, therefore requested that the electricity element heating the water in the bathroom be replaced with gas.
The temporary wall needed to be removed as he could not reach the window to ventilate the bathroom.
On 22 September 2021, the resident reported that when an engineer came to change the radiator in the bathroom, the pump did not drain the water, at the time he called the landlord where the engineer confirmed that the water was not draining.
On the same day the landlord acknowledged the resident’s email from 16 September and confirmed that it had put his complaint forward to be discussed for a review on 24 September 2021. It advised that, if the resident’s review request was accepted, it would respond to the resident within 20 working days from 24 September.
On 5 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and said that he would like to make a formal complaint for compensation as his household was disabled and the delayed void works which were still not finished caused them stress and health problems.
On 18 October 2021, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response, stating:
It acknowledged and apologised that it should not have taken the decision to replace the bath with a shower without notifying the resident beforehand.
It had fed back to its voids team, who had given their assurances that moving forward they would not seek to undertake any adaptations or other works in void properties outside of the normal lettable standard without giving prior notification to the incoming tenant.
It had established the radiators were in working order, therefore their removal would be unnecessary and not a justifiable use of public funds.
The void team returned and checked for blockages in the bathroom ensuring all wastes were running freely and confirmed all was in working order.
It tested the electrical water heating device in the bathroom and confirmed it was safe and working correctly and it would be unable to justify the expenditure of public funds in order to replace it with a gas one.
It had replaced the taps within the bathroom and undertaken a number of other works at the resident’s request. These included a repair to the rear door handle and some additional painting to the exterior of the windows.
The ultimate purpose of the complaints process was to put the resident back in the position they would have been in prior to the issue which led to their complaint. As such, it did not believe that issuing financial compensation would lead to this outcome. The landlord proposed two options for the resident to consider:
1. The resident could surrender his tenancy at his current address (which it understood the tenant was yet to move into), and it would offer him an alternative 1 bedroom or studio flat with a bath. The other household members would need to apply for housing separately (it could not guarantee the outcome of the application).
2. The landlord could replace the low-level shower at the property with a bath. However, it expressed concern that the wet room was installed on advice from its housing options medical team and asked the resident to carefully consider whether the reinstallation of a bath would fully meet his needs and whether the property was the right property for him.
It was partially upholding the resident’s complaint on the basis that it replaced the bath in the resident’s property with a shower without notifying the resident beforehand.
On 14 December 2021, as part of this Service’s involvement in this complaint, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to the resident from £150 to £250.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s account that his health and his household’s health was negatively affected by the outstanding void works and the landlord’s decision to replace the bath with a low-level shower. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a binding determination on whether there was a direct correlation between the household’s health and the condition of the property.
Whilst we cannot conclusively link the conditions in the property to the reported impact on the household’s health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord acknowledged that the delays in completing the void works caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Many of the repairs would not have prevented the resident from moving in, and were completed within reasonable timeframe after the resident reported the issues.
However, the landlord failed to inform the resident that it would be replacing the bath with a shower as per the occupational therapist’s recommendations. The failure to do so meant that the resident was unaware that the change had happened until he signed the tenancy in July. As the resident preferred a bath for his medical condition he then spent undue time and trouble asking the landlord to return the bathroom back to its original state.
It is important for landlords to take into consideration the recommendations of other professional bodies who support their residents, and the Ombudsman would always expect a landlord to carefully consider all recommendations made by an OT and implement these where possible. In this case it appears that the landlord had appropriately followed the advice provided by the OT which related to the property’s accessibility rather than the resident’s specific needs or preferences, but there had been a failure in its communication with the resident. A landlord should inform their residents of major changes to their properties that would affect their everyday life.
In this case, the landlord did not acknowledge early in the resident’s complaint, that although it was acting upon the occupational therapist recommendations, it failed to inform the resident of the changes to the bathroom before it made them. It was not until its stage two response that it gave the resident reasonable solutions to rectify its mistake.
The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for its delays in completing the void works and reasonable solutions to rectify its mistake for replacing the bath. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord increased its compensation from £150 to £250 when the resident escalated his complaint to this service. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the £250 compensation and the solutions outlined in the stage two response are reasonable redress for the failings identified in this case.
The landlord’s stage one and stage two responses were issued within reasonable timeframes. Although its stage two response was a few days past its deadline of 24 September, this delay did not have a significant impact on the resident.
The resident raised his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to his complaint several times throughout July, August and early September, it was only in mid-September when the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint for review. However, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord was actively looking for solutions to resolve the resident’s concerns in this period and taking this into consideration has not made a finding of service failure in this particular case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of its handling of the delayed completion of void works to the resident’s property and the changes to the bathroom which took place after the resident viewed the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s substantive complaint.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged its delay on completing the voids works and offered the resident reasonable compensation. It also offered the resident reasonable solutions to rectify its mistake of replacing the bath with a low-level shower without informing him prior to the start of his tenancy.
The landlord missed opportunities to escalate the resident’s complaint for review which subsequently delayed it from putting things right for the resident, However, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord was actively looking for solutions to resolve the resident’s concerns in this period.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord to pay £250 compensation it previously offered the resident, if not already paid.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord ensures all its staff are trained in identifying residents’ dissatisfaction with its stage one complaint responses in order to minimise delays in stage two escalation requests.
The landlord’s stage two response contained a commitment that the voids team would not undertake adaptations or other works in void properties which were outside the usual lettable standard without notifying the incoming tenant first. The Ombudsman therefore recommends that the landlord checks a sample of recent void properties to ensure that this has been actioned and that appropriate processes have been put in place to ensure that incoming tenants are made aware of any significant changes between a viewing of a property and the tenancy start date.