Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202012978)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012978

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

8 February 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

The complaint is about:
1. The resident’s assertion that he sustained physical injuries as a result of the removal of facilities.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs.
3. The conduct of the landlord’s operatives.

Jurisdiction

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, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has determined that complaint point (a) falls outside of this Service’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 39(i) explains that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
This is applicable to complaint point (a) as it is beyond the expertise and scope of this Service to investigate whether the resident did or did not sustain injuries during the period he has stated, or to determine the cause and/or liability for this matter. It would be more effective and appropriate for injury claims of this nature to be pursued via the courts.
The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to complaint (a) within this report. If the resident wishes to follow-up this element of the complaint, he should consider seeking legal advice.
This investigation has only considered:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs.
2. The conduct of the landlord’s operatives.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident began his tenancy with the landlord as an Introductory tenant in November 2019. He became a Secure tenant on 23 November 2020.
The property is a studio flat located on the first floor of a tower block.
The landlord is aware that the resident has mobility challenges.

Summary of events

The Ombudsman can see that soon after the commencement of the resident’s tenancy (in November 2019), several repairs were required to the resident’s front door and bathroom door. It is unclear whether the doors were fully replaced at this time, however the landlord’s records do confirm that inspections were undertaken, and that the locks on both the front door and bathroom door were attended to. It does not appear that there was any further contact from the resident in relation to these issues until December 2020.
On 16 December 2020 the resident raised that there was an ongoing issue with the bathroom door handle falling off. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident asserted a new door was required, and that the front door lock was also defective.
On the following day a job was additionally raised by the Aids and Adaptations team to supply and install a new shower curtain and rail, to convert the bath taps to mixer taps with a shower attachment, and to inspect the bathroom door.
The landlord’s records suggest that its operative visited the resident’s property on 13 January 2021. It does not appear that any works were undertaken at this time, however it was noted that a new bathroom door, wall tiles and bath panel were required.
On 14 January 2021 the bathroom door and handle were replaced. On or around this time, the bath taps were also converted. Notes suggest that the landlord reattended on 20 January 2021 and that works to the bathroom panel and tiles were undertaken.
On 22 January 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the front door lock had not been addressed, expressing dissatisfaction that the bath panel had not been changed, and that the tiling had not been finished.
It appears that on 1 February 2021 a new bath panel was fitted, a new handle and privacy latch was put on the bathroom door, and the faulty night latch on the front door was replaced. The landlord’s records suggest tiling was to be undertaken on 18/19 February 2021.
On 1 March 2021 the resident contacted the landlord expressing that he wished to raise a complaint. He stated that there had been a failure to replace the front door lock, the bathroom door, the bath handle, and the shower rail in good time. He emphasised that these issues had been present since he had moved in and that he felt neglected.
The landlord responded to the resident on the same day after discussing the details of his complaint. It apologised that the resident was dissatisfied with its service and confirmed that the issues raised would be considered at stage one of its complaints process.
On 22 March 2021 the landlord provided the resident with its stage one response. It noted, upon speaking with the resident on the phone:
1. Several jobs had been raised for repair at the resident’s home between 16 December and 22 January 2021. The bathroom door and handle were replaced on 14 January 2021, and the front door latch fitted on 1 February 2021. It explained that the bath handle, shower rail and curtain were removed from the wall as it was tiled to ceiling height, however as the tiling was not completed until 19 February 2021, these could not be fitted until 22 February 2021. It apologised for this.
2. It apologised that these works were delayed and for any inconvenience this caused. It stated that as the works had to be undertaken in order, and could not be taken simultaneously, this took over a month to complete. It noted that this should have been explained to him. It added that the lockdown period had impacted its resources and its ability to respond as quickly as it would have liked.
3. The resident was displeased that the operatives had left their tools and materials in his home. It explained that it had investigated this and learned that this was as the operatives were still in the process of completing works and due to return. The landlord acknowledged that the operatives should have asked if this was acceptable first and apologised for this.
On 23 March 2021 the resident responded. He stated:
1. He had been complaining about the issues from the day he moved in, yet the job had only recently been completed.
2. The tools and equipment left in the passage were a hazard and he was disappointed that the handrail had been removed for a long period of time. He explained that due to the lack of support in his bath, and the removal of equipment that he depended on, he had slipped in the bath.
3. The landlord had rescheduled operatives for work that had already been completed – such as the bathroom lock repair and the grouting. He stated there was clearly miscommunication. He asserted that this had caused him stress.
The resident expressed that he subsequently wished to escalate his complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process.
On 31 March 2021 the landlord provided the resident with its stage two response. It apologised that the issues raised had caused the resident distress and accepted that while it had previously offered an apology, it had not demonstrated within it stage one response how it had learned from the matter. It therefore highlighted that on reflection:
1. It needed to improve its voids inspection and sign-up process to ensure that it was better at identifying and rectifying faults prior to new tenants moving in.
2. It needed to improve how it tracked repairs from start to finish to avoid delays in jobs being completed and to ensure that duplicate orders were not raised.
3. It needed to improve how it communicated with its customers, so that they were informed of the progress of a job until completion, and so that it could ensure that they were satisfied.
4. It needed to reiterate to its operatives and contractors the expectations in terms of safe working practices, with particular reference to safe storage of tools.
The landlord explained that the Head of Resident Safety and Repairs, and the Assistant Director of Property Services would be taking a full system review of all processes and procedures relating to tracking and carrying out repairs. It also invited the resident, should he be interested, to join its Repairs and Resident Safey Panel if he wished to personally be involved in shaping the efforts to improve the service. The resident’s complaint was upheld and a further apology was offered.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs.

Where a request for repair has been made, which the landlord accepts responsibility for, the landlord is expected to take reasonable steps to address the matter, within a reasonable amount of time.
What is reasonable in these circumstances will depend on the extent of the work required, the situation, and the timeframe set out under the landlord’s repair policy for such jobs.
The Ombudsman has considered this and has noted that within the landlord’s repair policy, it explains that it will undertake routine repairs – such as those brought to the landlord’s attention in this case – within 20 working days. The Ombudsman therefore would have expected the landlord to have done this or, where it was unable to do so, to have set out the reasons why and to have arranged a new deadline.
The Ombudsman appreciates that as part of the resident’s complaint, he asserted that he had been complaining about the issues repaired in February 2021, since the day he had moved in (in November 2019). The Ombudsman is aware that repair requests were made at this time, however it appears that the resident was satisfied with the landlord’s response to these.
If this was not the case, it would have been reasonable for the resident to have raised a complaint with the landlord in relation to this. The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s records, however, and cannot see that any complaints were made prior to the resident’s complaint in March 2021. The Ombudsman has therefore been unable to consider any earlier responses from the landlord.
The Ombudsman can see, nonetheless, that several repairs were brought to the landlord’s attention between 16 December 2020 and 22 January 2021, as the landlord noted. With the exception of the bath handle, shower curtain and rail, it appears that the remaining repairs were completed within a reasonable time, taking into account the delay which would have been caused by the Christmas holiday.
In respect of the bath handle, shower curtain and rail, however, the Ombudsman notes that this was raised by the Aids and Adaptations team on 17 December 2020. It therefore would have been reasonable for the landlord to have completed this work before the end of January 2021 (noting the Christmas delay). It is clear, however, that this was not done. Adding to this, the landlord failed to maintain communication with the resident at this time, to update him on the reasons for this delay and to manage his expectations. This was inappropriate.
The Ombudsman accepts that in the landlord’s stage one response, it acknowledged that it failed to communicate with the resident and offered him an apology. The landlord also explained the reasons why the installation of the outstanding items had taken some time and this, coupled with the impact that COVID-19 would have had on its services, was fair.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, given the resident’s vulnerabilities and that the works had been requested as a means of supporting the resident with this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have set out the cause of the delay and the expected completion date. At minimum, this would have enabled it to reassure the resident that works were still scheduled to be completed at the soonest possible opportunity, and possibly to explore any alternative and/or temporary measures to support the resident during this time.
The landlord did recognise learnings within its stage two response which were fair and demonstrated its intention to improve its communication with residents, as well as its repair service. In the Ombudsman’s view, however, it should have also used this opportunity to make an offer of compensation to recognise the delay in completing works and the resident’s experience. Its failure to do so, meant that it did not do enough to put things right.

The conduct of the landlord’s operatives.

It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s discontent with the conduct of its staff. While the Ombudsman appreciates that operatives will require many tools and heavy equipment, this does not provide them with the right to leave items at a resident’s property (without permission) until a job is complete.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord accepted this and as well as following this up with its contractors to establish why this had happened, it offered the resident an explanation and an apology. This was appropriate. As the landlord noted, if its operatives wished to leave their belongings, the resident should have been asked if this was acceptable in the first instance.
The Ombudsman is unable to comment on whether this did or did not create a health and safety hazard for the resident. The Ombudsman has also seen no reports from the resident at the time, which would have indicated to the landlord that the tools / equipment was causing a major inconvenience. It is appreciated, however, that the operatives should have acted more appropriately. The landlord’s indication that it would reiterate best working practices with its operatives – with a particular focus on safe storage of tools – was therefore proportionate.
Moreover, in respect of the landlord incorrectly rescheduling works, the Ombudsman can see that due to the resident’s mobility challenges, this could have caused him some inconvenience. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord apologised for this and noted that it needed to improve how repairs were tracked to avoid duplicate orders. This was fair and proportionate.
The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord will make mistakes on occasion, and so would expect it to identify ways to mitigate this moving forward. It is clear that the landlord did this and assured the resident that it sought to do more to review its whole repair procedure. The resident was also invited to be involved in shaping the improvement of the landlord’s repair service.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme, in respect of the resident’s assertion that he sustained physical injuries as a result of the removal of facilities, the Ombudsman has determined that this complaint falls outside of this Service’s Jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:
1. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs.
2. No maladministration in respect of the conduct of the landlord’s operatives.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determinations as:
1. While the landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in undertaking the resident’s repair, and had provided the resident with an apology (as well as areas for learning), it did not go far enough to put things right. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, an offer of compensation should have been made to recognise the landlord’s failure to uphold the timeframe set out in its repair policy, to recognise the resident’s experience, and to recognise its failure to keep the resident updated.
2. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord appropriately addressed this matter within its complaint responses. The apology offered to the resident was proportionate. It was also reasonable, in line with the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles (To be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes), that the landlord highlighted the steps it would be taking to improve its Service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In recognition of the above service failure, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £100.
This payment should be made within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

In line with good practice, the landlord identified several key areas for the improvement of its repair service. It should now ensure, if it has not already done so through its proposed full system review, that it implements these improvements.