Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202203772)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203772

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

30 March 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

1. The resident has complained about being placed on the landlord’s restrictions list and its handling of communications on the issue.

Background

2. The tenant is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property which is a first floor flat and where he has lived since 27 October 1997.
3. On 22 July 2021 the resident complained that two engineers attended his property for a gas safety check when only one was required.  The landlord provided the stage one response on 10 August 2021, apologising for its delay in responding and for the inconvenience the visit had caused.  It explained that due to the resident’s inclusion on a restrictions list, two operatives were required to attend the resident’s property.  The resident reported on 16 August 2021, he was unaware of his inclusion and the reasons for this. The resident reported he had not been provided with information about the process or its review.
4. As the resident remained dissatisfied, the complaint moved to stage two of the landlord’s complaints policy. On 14 September 2021 the landlord provided further explanation of the reasons for the resident’s inclusion on the list.  It also explained that following review, the resident’s name had been removed from the list with immediate effect.  However, the resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to this Service. He believed the landlord’s complaint responses did not address his concerns about his inclusion on the landlord’s restrictions list nor its handling of communications on this issue.
5. The processes placing the resident on the list prior to 2021 have not been considered as they are historical events outside the jurisdiction of this Service.

Assessment and findings

6. There is evidence that the resident was placed on the restrictions list following an incident on 16 June 2014 when the landlord recorded that the resident was aggressive and verbally abusive to several members of staff.  There was a subsequent incident on 27 October 2017 when the landlord recorded that the resident was verbally abusive during a phone call which resulted in the resident remaining on this list.  The inclusion on the list triggers alerts to staff that due to the increased risk, they should only attend the resident’s property in pairs.
7. The resident was unaware of his inclusion on the alert list until he complained in August 2021 about pairs of operatives attending his property.  The response provided at the first stage of the complaint process explained that the resident’s previous aggressive and abusive behaviour had resulted in his inclusion. The landlord also explained that a review in 2020 had concluded the resident should remain on the list until the next review in 2021.
8. The resident was dissatisfied with this response as he had not been informed why and when he had been included on the list nor of the processes for appeal and review.  On 16 August 2021 he requested further details from the landlord about the incidents which had resulted in his status and when he was placed on this list. The resident asked that his inclusion be evoked with immediate effect.
9. On 14 September 2021 the landlord provided a response at the second stage of its complaints policy.  The landlord noted the initial delay in providing the stage one response and explained the reasons for this and the steps taken to prevent reoccurrence.  It also offered a further apology on behalf of the organisation.
10. The landlord noted that the stage one response included explanations why two engineers had attended.  However, it acknowledged that the opportunity should have been taken at that time to set out the incidents which led to the resident’s status.
11. The landlord provided details of the incidents on 16 June 2014 and 27 October 2017 when the resident’s aggressive and abusive behaviour left staff feeling vulnerable and fearing for their safety. The landlord explained that as these incidents were serious, he was satisfied that it was appropriate to place the resident on the restrictions list.  The landlord acknowledged that the resident should have been formally informed about his status and advised of his right to appeal.  The resident should also have been provided with information on the review process and periodic timings.
12. The landlord confirmed that a review of the restrictions list was due in 2021 and that, following the resident’s complaint, this was brought forward and his case reviewed. It determined that as there had been no further incidents since 2017, the resident’s name would be removed from the list with immediate effect.  The landlord also reminded the resident of the consequences should any further such incidents occur.
13. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint due to the failings in how the resident’s designation had been managed and the review processes in place.The landlord has acknowledged that the situation regarding his inclusion on the restrictions list has caused the resident distress. The landlord has also recognised there had been significant failings in terms of how these processes have been carried out in the resident’s case.
14. The Service notes that on 10 May 2022, the resident informed the landlord that three pairs of workmen attended his property to carry out repairs. The landlord apologised that the record of the resident’s inclusion had not been removed from one of its systems resulting in this situation. The landlord initiated an investigation and agreed to contact the resident with the outcome.  Whilst it is reasonable to expect this occurred, this Service can see no evidence that this has been provided.
15. Once the landlord’s non-compliance with its Violent Incidents Policy and Procedure, was drawn to its attention, it apologised to the resident and set out the action it would be taking. Whilst this response was reasonable by the landlord, its acknowledgment in May 2022 that it had failed to remove the resident’s inclusion on the list from one of its systems demonstrated that it hadn’t applied the resolution principles of putting things right, following fair processes and learning from its mistakes. This amounted to maladministration.

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Orders

17. If it has not already done so the landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to write the resident apologising for the further incident of workmen attending in pairs, providing a full explanation why this occurred, and setting out what actions it will be taking to prevent re-occurrence.
18. The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings identified int his report. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.
19. The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made.