Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202006364)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006364

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

3 December 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 is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mismatched lighting in the communal areas.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies a flat within a block.
3. On 31 July 2020, the resident emailed the landlord’s complaints team to ask it to address the lighting in the communal lobby of his building. He pointed out that there were six lights in the lobby which among them used four different fittings and the lights were of “five different bulbs and strength”. The resident was unhappy with their appearance and said that the lights should be uniform, as they were in other blocks.
4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s contact on 4 August 2020, advising that it would respond within ten working days. It responded to him on 5 August 2020 when it relayed that it carried out an annual test on 17 July 2020. The landlord confirmed that it was awaiting a quote for remedial works from its contractor. It explained that it endeavoured to replace lights with similar parts but this was dependant on the availability of the parts, therefore some lights may have been replaced with newer models.
5. After receiving contact from the resident, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 19 October 2020 to request that it address his dissatisfaction. It responded to this Service on 16 November 2020 to confirm that it had already responded to his concerns as a service request.
6. On 3 March 2021, the resident confirmed to this Service that he had not chased his complaint. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 6 April 2021 to request that it consider the matter through its complaints procedure.
7. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 April 2021 to confirm that he continued to be dissatisfied with the lack of uniformity of the light fittings and the bulbs used, and acknowledged his complaint at stage one of its complaint procedure the next day.
8. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 23 April 2021 in which it confirmed that it had not considered his enquiry of 31 July 2020 as a formal complaint. It relayed that, after its initial inspection in July 2020, it identified further lighting issues after another inspection in December 2020. The landlord confirmed that all the remedial works were “completed to an acceptable standard” which left the lights fully working on both occasions.
9. The landlord reiterated that it attempted to maintain uniformity with the light fittings, but older models were replaced with newer versions as the parts became discontinued. It also explained that it would replace light bulbs which were more cost effective and performed better, in consideration of the impact this had on the level of the service charge imposed on residents. The landlord confirmed that all the bulbs it used met or exceeded the minimum lighting lux level required.
10. The resident escalated his complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 28 April 2021, citing his continued dissatisfaction with it not taking any action to make the lighting uniform.
11. The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 14 May 2021 in which it acknowledged the impact of the aesthetic appearance of the building on residents’ enjoyment of their properties. It reiterated that, although it made “great effort” to replace fittings which were defective with similar parts, it could not always do this due to older parts becoming discontinued. The landlord relayed that, in response to the resident’s concerns, it carried out a further inspection of all the lighting in the block and found four faulty lights which were all replaced the same day.
12. The landlord acknowledged that there were some mismatched lights in the lobbies and confirmed that it would replace these with its standard light fittings in the general communal and escape areas. It also said that it would be upgrading old lights on the ground floor with LED fittings. The landlord cautioned that it could not guarantee that all the fittings would remain the same as these would again by subject to availability as older fittings became obsolete.
13. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it had not found any failures in its maintenance of the communal lighting but hoped that its proposal to address some of the cosmetic issues was acceptable to him.
14. The resident emailed the landlord on 20 May 2021 to inform it that he continued to be dissatisfied because he felt that it did not manage the maintenance of the lighting correctly. He pointed out that other blocks had identical light fittings and contended that this was down to proper management of those blocks. The resident attributed the difference in bulbs in the communal light fittings to “laziness and bad management” by the landlord and disputed that there was a lack of availability of the light fittings used in his block. He added that the aesthetic appearance of the building was important as it contributed to how tenant’s felt about their homes.
15. The landlord provided evidence, dated 12 August 2021, which detailed works it carried out from 5 May 2021 onwards to renew 12 emergency lights and four ceiling lights which, photographs showed, were identical to one another.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

16. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order the common parts and the structure and exterior of the building.
17. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend reports of defective parts of the building promptly and that these are “reactive in nature” after being notified of the repair by residents or staff.
18. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure and defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction… about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the [landlord]”. At stage one of the complaints procedure, it is to provide a response to the resident within ten days of receipt of the complaint. At the final stage, the landlord is to provide its final complaint response within 20 working days.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mismatched lighting in the communal areas

19. As confirmed by the landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident above, it had a responsibility to keep the lighting of the communal area in proper working order. It would be expected of a landlord to ensure that there was adequate lighting in the shared areas of its building to mitigate any health and safety and security concerns.
20. It is noted that the resident was dissatisfied with the appearance of the lighting and that individual light fittings were mismatched and not uniform in appearance. This, however, did not mean that the lighting was defective or not in proper working order. The landlord carried out an annual inspection of the lighting in July 2020, a further inspection in December 2020, and another inspection in response to the resident’s complaint and carried out remedial work to repair any defective lights. These were reasonable actions on its part to ensure that the communal lighting was adequately maintained and there was no evidence that the landlord failed to meet its obligation to maintain the communal lighting. Particularly as this was not an explicit part of the resident’s complaint.
21. A landlord would be expected to make prudent use of resident’s funds so as not to impose an excessive financial burden on them through the service charge. This means that it was reasonable for the landlord to replace individual lights as and when they passed their useful lifespan. It explained to the resident in its responses to him that this meant that it was not always possible to ensure that replacement lights were identical to their predecessors. This was a reasonable explanation, which demonstrated its commitment to making best use of residents’ service charge contributions.
22. While mismatched lighting may have appeared to be less aesthetically pleasing to the resident, it is important to note that aesthetic appeal is subjective and opinions on this will vary. Furthermore it is not an explicit part of the landlord’s repairing obligations, as set out in the tenancy agreement and established in Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
23. It is also notable that the landlord proposed, in its final response to the resident, to make efforts to standardise its replacement of communal lights to create a more uniform appearance. There was then evidence that it followed through with this proposal. While there was no evidence of a failure in its initial response, this demonstrated that it took the resident’s concerns into account in its communal maintenance work. This is a good example of using a formal complaint to improve the landlord’s service.
24. In conclusion, there was no evidence of a failure on the landlord’s part as it made reasonable efforts to maintain the communal lighting by carrying out inspections and remedial work, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement. The resident’s requests were outside its obligations. It also provided evidence that it since made efforts to standardise replacement lights in the communal areas of the building to create a more uniform appearance.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

25. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that member landlords’ “should recognise the difference between a service request (pre-complaint)… and a formal complaint” and that their complaints policies should “clearly set out the circumstances in which a matter will not be considered” within its complaints procedure. The landlord’s complaints policy is silent on what matters are considered service requests.
26. The landlord confirmed to this Service that it responded to the resident’s initial contact on 31 July 2020 as a service request, however there was a belief on the resident’s part that the matter was being considered as a complaint. This would have been reinforced by his submitting his contact to the landlord’s complaints team. It was not made clear to the resident that its response on 5 August 2020 was made outside of its complaints procedure; this is particularly because it acknowledged his contact on 4 August 2020 and promised a response within ten working days, the same timeframe as for a stage one complaint response.
27. This lack of clarity would have likely given rise to the expectation by the resident that his contact had been treated as a complaint. He was then required to make additional effort to progress his complaint by seeking the intervention of the Ombudsman.
28. It was reasonable for the landlord to treat the resident’s initial contact as a service request, as there was no evidence of him raising the matter with it previously. It should, however, have clarified to him on 5 August 2020 that his enquiry had not been treated as a complaint. It is also noted as a mitigation that there was no evidence of the resident pursuing the matter until his contact with this Service 3 March 2021.
29. The landlord’s failure to properly explain how it had handled the initial contact is not in itself reason enough for a finding against the landlord. Tt was reasonable for the landlord to treat the resident’s initial contact as a service request (albeit there should have been a clear explanation). Its subsequent complaint responses were provided within the timeframes specified in its complaints policy above and these responses engaged with the substance of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

30. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in:
    1. Its response to the resident’s reports of mismatched lighting in the communal areas.
    2. Its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

31. The landlord should:
    1. Review its complaints policy to ensure that it is clear about what it considers to be a complaint and a service request.
    2. Review its procedures for responding to residents to ensure that sufficient information is given to them about how it has processed their contact.