Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202002742)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002742

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

21 June 2021

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 concerns:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about repair issues.
   2. The landlord’s handling of historical issues and repairs.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Historical issues and repairs

3. Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that “were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising”.
4. Throughout her complaint the resident has explained that she reported repairs to the landlord from September 2017 until February 2018, and that it failed to address them. She has also referenced several other historical issues with the landlord dating back to 2004, including allegations made against her son in 2016, and its serving of a Notice Seeking Possession in 2017. Evidence has been provided for this investigation of formal complaints being raised with the landlord about these issues, prior to the one the landlord responded to in November 2019. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, and following a lack of response, to bring the complaint to us. These historical issues are raised more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaint procedure, so in line with paragraph 39(d), this investigation will centre on the events leading up to the resident’s complaint at the end of 2019.
5. Any mention of historical issues throughout this report is for background purposes.

Background and summary of events

6. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
7. On 14 October 2019 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She referred to several issues, many of which do not form part of this investigation. She said that she was “logging new disrepair matters”. These issues included, but were not limited to, damage to her front door, broken kitchen cupboards, and “black marks” on the ceiling in her lounge.
8. The resident later explained in her correspondence with the landlord that it responded to her on 24 October 2019. The resident said it had advised that it had checked its records, and could not “locate any new repairs reported by [her] and as such [it was] unable to treat this matter as a formal complaint”. She said the landlord had asked to meet to understand her complaint, and so that a surveyor could investigate the repairs.
9. The resident has explained in her complaint that, on 6 November 2019, there was a water leak from her boiler.
10. On 12 November 2019 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She referred to several issues, many of which do not form part of this investigation. She reiterated the repairs she had previously reported.
11. The resident later explained to the landlord in her complaint, that on 20 November 2019 it called her and “confirmed that [it] would not be addressing correspondence older than a year” in its complaint response.
12. The landlord visited the resident’s property on 22 November 2019 with its surveyor.
13. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 28 November 2019. It provided a link to its complaint policy. It explained that its surveyor had recommended for it to carry out work in her living room, kitchen, bathroom, lower hallway, and on the front external door step. It said it would contact her within 10 days with a scheduled plan of repair works. It acknowledged the leak from 6 November, and that the resident had subsequently reported damaged belongings, and personal injury. It advised her to claim on its insurance, and gave her details of its insurance team. It concluded by explaining how she could escalate her complaint to stage two of its process if she remained dissatisfied.
14. The resident asked the landlord to review her complaint on 6 January 2020. She referred to several issues, many of which do not form part of this investigation. She said the landlord had not dealt with “substantial issues repeated in [her] email” from 14 October 2019. It is apparent that these substantial issues were historical ones relating to repairs.
15. On 20 March 2020 the landlord issued its review of the resident’s stage one complaint. It apologised for its delayed response. It confirmed that it had completed all outstanding repair work (aside from the realignment of a step). It reiterated that the resident should claim on its insurance for damaged belongings. It concluded by explaining how she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
16. On 17 April 2020 the resident escalated her complaint. She referred to several historical issues. She also disputed the landlord’s explanation that it had no records of her reporting new repairs. She said she had provided “proof of receipt that a request was made” and evidence provided confirms this in the form of emails. She reiterated what she had explained on 6 January 2020.
17. The landlord issued its “follow up to your stage one complaint” on 4 May 2020. It said that, in accordance with its complaint policy, it reserved the right to decide whether to log a formal complaint, or try resolve it by other means. It explained that it had first informally dealt with the issues she raised on 14 October 2019, and then raised them as a formal complaint. It explained that in the resident’s complaint from 14 October 2019, she had referred to an email she had sent January 2019. It said that it could not consider complaints concerning matters which occurred more than 12 months prior. It explained that several of the points she had raised were historical, and dealt with at the time. It said that it could not comment on insurance claims, and was satisfied that it had addressed all the issues she raised in her stage one complaint. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate her complaint to stage two if she remained dissatisfied.
18. The resident escalated her complaint on 10 June 2020. Most of the points she made related to historical issues. She reiterated what she had explained on 6 January, and 17 April. She said that she found it “highly offensive and defensive” that the landlord would not investigate aspects of her complaint.
19. The landlord issued its stage three complaint response on 1 July 2020. It explained again why it would not consider her historical complaints, and how the resident could claim for her damaged belongings. It acknowledged that at the end of its previous complaint responses it had explained how she could escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaint process. Then, when she asked to do so, it sent “a review of the previous response”. It explained that in line with its complaints process, if parts of a complaint could not be progressed, there was no further right to appeal under the complaints process. It acknowledged it should have advised her earlier how to refer her complaint to this Service. It offered her £75 compensation for the delay, and explained how the resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

20. The landlord’s complaint policy states that complaints must concern something that “has happened or come to the attention of the complainant within the last 12 months”. It says that complaints about insurance claims fall outside its policy. It also explains that the landlord reserves the right to deal with complaints differently if they can be handled more effectively in another manner.
21. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that the level of compensation it offers residents will be based on its level of responsibility for an issue (none, partial, or full), and the impact on the resident (none, low, medium, or high). For example, if the landlord takes partial responsibility for a shortcoming that has had a low impact on the resident, it will offer £50.
22. On 14 October 2019 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said that she was “logging new disrepair matters”. She later explained that the landlord told her it would not formally investigate her complaint, as it had no records of her having already reported these issues. Rather, it organised for a surveyor to attend and investigate, and subsequently carried out repair work. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it can use its discretion to determine how to handle complaints. None of the evidence provided for this investigation indicates that the resident reported these repairs before raising a complaint about the landlord’s handling of them. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to have considered the resident’s initial reports as repair requests, rather than a formal complaint. Any landlord needs to be provided with an opportunity to respond to repairs before investigating complaints about how it dealt with them.
23. The resident acknowledged that the landlord explained the scope of its complaint investigation in a telephone conversation on 20 November 2019. It provided her with a link to its complaint policy in its stage one complaint response which explains what aspects it cannot investigate. It also reiterated in its stage two complaint response that it could not address the entirety of her complaint due to her having raised many historical issues. The explanations given by the landlord were in accordance with its complaint policy as explained above in paragraph 20, as the issues concerned matters that had occurred more than 12 months prior.
24. The landlord also explained why it could not consider concerns relating to insurance claims. It directed the resident by explaining how she could make a claim for any damaged belongings, and personal injury. This was also in line with its complaint policy, and therefore a reasonable response.
25. In the landlord’s final complaint response from 1 July 2020, it acknowledged that it had not previously made it clear how the resident could escalate her complaint, or refer it to this Service. It apologised for this shortcoming, explained what it should have advised her, and offered her £75 compensation. This offer was in line with its compensation policy as explained above in paragraph 21. It was also in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance as the misdirection did not have a permanent, or significant impact on the resident. It was therefore suitable redress to remedy its shortcoming.

Determination (decision)

26. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons 

27. The landlord omitted to explain how the resident could escalate her complaint or refer it to this Service in its complaint responses. It remedied this shortcoming by apologising, and offering her a reasonable amount of compensation. It also acted in accordance with its complaint policy by not investigating certain aspects of her complaint.