Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202204847)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204847

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

25 October 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise disturbance from communal water tank pipes.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder and lives in a top floor flat.
3. The resident first reported noise and vibration coming from the pipes connected to a communal water tank on 19 June 2021. A repair was raised, and a contractor attended on 6 July 2021. They concluded that no faults were found with the water tank and no noise could be heard at the time of the visit.
4. After further reports by the resident, more visits took place in October 2021 to inspect the pipework and replace a ball-valve. The ball-valve was replaced again in March 2022 and further jobs were attended in May 2022 to order and replace other specific parts. In July 2022, the landlord’s notes showed that it was in the process of checking the plumbing in multiple properties in the block in order to identify and fix any issues that could have been causing the noise.
5. The resident raised a complaint because of what he saw as a lack of action, or communication from the landlord about resolving his concerns.
6. In response the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint, acknowledging that there had been delays in contacting the resident, and his concerns had not been escalated appropriately. The landlord also agreed that it did not do a full inspection of the pipes initially, as its contractors only checked the water tank. It apologised and set out a plan of action explaining that it would be replacing the ball valve in the water tank and, if that was unsuccessful, a process of elimination would begin, whereby further solutions would be considered.
7. The resident’s outstanding issues brought to this Service were regarding the landlord’s lack of communication and action to resolve the ongoing issue. He has confirmed that at the time of this report the problem remains ongoing.

Assessment and findings

8. The Ombudsman is not able to comment on the technical appropriateness of the landlord’s efforts to identify the source of this problem, as the Service does not have the relevant professional expertise. Instead, the focus of the investigation is on the reasonableness of the landlord’s actions, based on any relevant polices, guidance and good practice available.
9. Any issues with the repair and maintenance of systems outside the resident’s property would usually be the responsibility of the landlord. Thus, if the suspected noise was thought to be coming from systems outside the resident’s property (as in this case), the landlord would be obligated to investigate accordingly, in a timely manner, and communicate its next steps and expectations with the resident appropriately.
10. Initially, the landlord responded to the resident’s report within its general repair timeframe. As there were no issues found with the suspected cause of the problem, there was no further activity. The evidence suggests this was because the noise was perceived to be due to the water tank filling up after residents had used water, and there was nothing that could be done to stop that. This was not unreasonable, as the landlord attended in a timely manner and assessed the issue. However, there is no evidence of landlord communicating these findings back to the resident which, in itself, was not reasonable given the effect he had reported the issue was having on him.
11. The evidence shows that emails were sent by the resident in August and September 2021 asking for updates. The resident also explained he was advised at the end of June 2021 that he would be getting a follow up call from a supervisor. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident until it gave its first complaint response on 28 September 2021. This was not reasonable, especially as the resident had explained how the noise was affecting his sleep on a daily basis, and the lack of communication from the landlord understandably added to his frustration and inconvenience. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond to his update requests (before he had to raise a complaint) and advise what it was planning to do.
12. The landlord acknowledged its poor communication in its first complaint response, and apologised for it. It also upheld the complaint about the ongoing noise. It is unclear why that part of the complaint was upheld, as prior to this the landlord had investigated and found no faults, and it did not explain how it believed it had provided poor service (apart from the communication issue). The fact that the noises were continuing would not be enough on its own to indicate service failure if the landlord had taken reasonable steps to investigate the matter, even if it was still unresolved.
13. However, despite upholding the complaint, the landlord failed to explain what more it could or could not do for the resident in resolving the issue, leaving the resident no closer to a resolution. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which states that a remedy must set out measures to put right any service failures. The absence of a clear explanation or plan to move forward understandably added to the inconvenience and distress to the resident. By doing this, it could have avoided the need for the resident to chase the matter further at a later date. This was not taken into consideration and as a result, this was a service failure.
14. The lack of action following the initial inspection in July 2021, despite the resident’s continued reports, was poor service. However, in its second complaint response in October 2021, the landlord acknowledged that its first complaint response had not provided any relevant solutions, apologised, and set out a plan of action for the resident, starting with an appointment in the same month to replace a part, and a promise that, should this not resolve the problem, it would then carry out a process of elimination to find and resolve the issue. This was a reasonable approach from the landlord as it gave the resident some idea of what to expect, and it showed the landlord’s commitment to resolving the issue. The complaint response addressed the landlord’s initial failings, and promised what the resident was seeking i.e. efforts towards resolving the ongoing noise and vibration.
15. The evidence shows a range of visits to the property by the landlord to continue investigations of the problem in March, April, May, June and July 2022. The visits ranged from inspections to part replacements, and most recently the landlord was in the process of checking multiple flats within the block to resolve any issues which could be causing the noise. This shows the landlord following the plan set out in its complaint response. While clearly and understandably frustrating for the resident, this process adopted by the landlord was a reasonable one in a situation where the problem is intermittent, and with no clear source or cause. The Ombudsman’s investigations centre on events leading up to the landlord’s final complaint response, and on any commitments it has made in that response. In this case, the evidence shows that the landlord did what it said it would do. The resident approached the Ombudsman in June 2022 and explained that the problem was still ongoing. However, as explained above, the lack of resolution does not necessarily indicate service failure by the landlord.
16. Overall, the landlord’s responsibility in a situation like the resident’s is to show that it is willing to support him with his concerns. The cause of an issue may not always be apparent, but to be reasonable the landlord should show, through its actions, its attempts to resolve the issue and communicate with the resident. There was service failure in the landlord’s communication prior to its final complaint response, but its acknowledgement, apologies and ongoing efforts to resolve the problem were reasonable remedies in the circumstances at the time.
17. Notwithstanding the above, the issue is still unresolved and the resident continues to experience what he has described to this Service as a major negative impact on his day to day life. Recommendations are made below in that regard.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

19. While the landlord’s actions following its complaint responses were reasonable, the fact remains that the resident still experiences the same problems. The landlord should continue its efforts to explore every possibility and work with the resident to achieve a solution.
20. To that end, the landlord is strongly urged to consider seeking an independent or external assessment of both the problem, and the actions it has taken so far to resolve it. This may help identify potential alternative solutions, and confirm what further steps, if any, the landlord could reasonably consider taking. An independent assessment will also help reassure the resident that the landlord has done or is doing all that could realistically be expected.