Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202101926)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101926

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant, in respect of the property, since May 2004.

The property is a second-floor studio flat.

Summary of Events

On 25 January 2021 the resident complained to the landlord about outstanding repairs to her property and the amount of time it was taking the landlord to complete them – which she stated was two years against a history of disrepair over a ten-year period. She referred to a flue pipe which she was waiting to have removed from the property, her windows to be fixed, and damp in the toilet to be addressed.

With regard to the flue pipe, she reported that the last time she had heard from the landlord’s heating contractor was when it had carried out her annual gas check. The contractor’s view, as she understood it, was that it was classed as a major job for which she would need to move out of the property. The resident had expected to hear from the landlord’s surveyor further about it but had had no more contact.

With regard to the windows, she complained that despite numerous repairs they were still faulty, and this had led to damage to her walls and floorboards. She stated she continued to live with a cold draught coming through into her property and that she could not open the balcony door and window.

The landlord’s internal records show that on 26 January 2021 the landlord tried to telephone the resident to explain that its complaints procedure only allowed it to consider complaints up to twelve months old. The landlord was not able to contact her and called again the following day, 27 January 2021. The resident stated she was unable to talk at that time and asked the landlord to call back again the next day, 28 January 2021. However when it did so, it was asked to call back again the day after that.

An internal email dated 3 February 2021 states the work to remove the flue pipe was raised in 2019 but on attendance the landlord’s operative could not get into the loft due to it being used for storage. It was not ‘booked back in’ but the resident raised the issue again in late 2020. Its operative had reattended in November 2020 when they advised the job would take a day to complete but it was cancelled having been deemed of “cosmetic” necessity only.

The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 February 2021 with its stage one complaint response. It understood her complaint was about its delay in carrying out works in her property, namely the removal of the flue pipe; the repair of faulty windows; and the removal of damp in the toilet. It responded as follows:

It confirmed it had instructed its contractor to remove the flue which was situated in the loft. Unfortunately, they were unable to do so due to the number of items being stored in there. This was then overridden by a further inspection in November 2020 when it was determined the flue was actually safe and did not need to be removed. Whilst the landlord could still remove it, this would be expensive and of cosmetic value only. The landlord apologised that this information had not been supplied to the resident.

With regard to the balcony door and window the landlord confirmed these were due for renewal under its capital programme for 2022/23. Its records showed the resident had refused a repair in February 2020 because she wanted replacements, but it could not commit to this ahead of its improvement schedule. The landlord confirmed it was arranging for a repairs supervisor to visit and check whether any repairs could be carried out in the meantime, and also to look at any damage done to the walls and floorboards as a result of any leaks. That appointment was scheduled for 23 February 2021.

The landlord commented that the resident could manage mould build up with good ventilation, heating and spray treatments. The repairs supervisor would, however, consider whether the issue was being caused in a way that was beyond the resident’s control when they visited.

The resident could not accommodate the inspection on 23 February 2021 and so it did not go ahead and needed to be rescheduled.

On 18 March 2021 the resident requested her complaint be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure. She stated the landlord had taken over two years to carry out repairs and repeated that this was against a ten-year history of poor repairs management. She stated works were still outstanding – namely removal of the flue, the windows still needed fixing (despite previous attempts) and the damp in the toilet still needed to be addressed. She disputed that the flue did not need to be removed. She stated the situation had impacted on her health and wellbeing and the level of her heating costs.

The landlord’s surveyor ultimately visited the property on 3 April 2021 and reported a number of issues which they backed up with photographic evidence. The window casement was swollen and an adjustment was required; there was a broken window lock; a previous repair to prevent water penetration and minimise draughts appeared to have been a temporary repair and water penetration had soaked the resident’s flooring which she had paid to have fixed herself; a leak to the toilet flush pipe was identified due to a poorly fitted panel; the flue pipe was causing no problem and there was no need to remove it. The surveyor also noted that an architrave around an internal door had been removed to accommodate a fridge but there did not seem to be any fire compartmentation material applied to the frame or the stud wall.

On 12 April 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage two complaint response. It summarised her complaints and noted the resident was looking for an explanation for the delay and compensation for her time and trouble in dealing with the various issues. The resident had also asked to be compensated for replacement flooring, stating it had rotted through due to the water penetration. Its position was as follows:

The landlord agreed that the service it had offered the resident had fallen short of the standard it aimed to provide. It acknowledged the resident had had a steady stream of operatives visit her property over a 12-month period without any one person taking ownership for completing the work required. The landlord apologised for the distress and frustration this had caused the resident. It also expressed its regret that the resident had felt dismissed by the operatives because of her gender.

Moving forward the landlord intended to allocate a designated officer to every set of works to ensure somebody was required to take overall responsibility.

The landlord acknowledged that the resident had been unable to accommodate the original intended inspection for 23 February 2021 and apologised that she had had to follow up to rearrange the appointment rather than its contractor attending to this. The survey had been rearranged for 3 April 2021 when its surveyor had been able to attend and had reached the following conclusions:-

The metal pipe was found to be redundant and as it was not causing any obstruction, it would not be cost effective to remove it.

The casement of one of the windows was swollen and catching on its frame. A carpenter needed to attend to adjust it.

A broken lock on one of the windows needed repair.

Previous repairs to the windows to prevent water penetration and draughts had been inadequate and needed to be repeated.

The resident should be reimbursed for work she had paid for herself to the flooring after it was damaged by water penetration.

The landlord identified a leak in the toilet which may be causing or contributing to the mould. This had been caused by a poor quality previous repair. Rectification work was required.

The surveyor had noted a modification which had been made to an internal door frame meaning it did not comply with fire requirements.

The landlord confirmed jobs had been raised to deal with the various issues and one person had been assigned the task of co-ordinating them all to ensure they were resolved. The resident was supplied with contact details for this staff member.

By way of compensation the landlord offered £200 to cover the cost of the repairs to the flooring. This was subject to review if it had cost the resident more than this. A further sum of £200 was also offered for the resident’s distress and inconvenience in terms of the delays and the fact that previous repairs had not been completed to an acceptable standard.

Following this response, the landlord arranged to carry out the works it had identified as outstanding. On 23 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord as its operative had visited the property to attend to the toilet area. Having identified what was required, he contacted his supervisor who then declined permission to carry the work out saying it was not required as no damp had been identified at that visit. The landlord responded that it would liaise with its repairs staff and update her shortly.

However, before it could respond further the resident raised further concerns about the way the outstanding repairs were being handled. She stated she was continuing to experience problems with appointments not being kept or being arranged at short notice; that multiple appointments were being offered, so that jobs were not being co-ordinated as promised; and with poor communication not just with herself but between the landlord and its operatives as to what was required. The landlord responded on 29 April 2021 summarising the current position, as far as it was concerned, as follows: –

Swollen Window Easement/Broken window lock: The resident was contacted on 29 April 2021 with an appointment for the next day, which it acknowledged she could not accommodate at such short notice due to work commitments. The work was rescheduled for 4 May 2021.

Repeat repair to window to prevent water penetration and draughts: The landlord’s operative was scheduled to attend the property on 28 April to see to this but had forgotten the appointment as he was busy elsewhere. The appointment was rearranged for 4 May 2021.

Resolve issue with removed architrave to internal door: This job was scheduled to be dealt with on 4 May 2021 with the other carpentry issues.

Repair leak to toilet/mould issue: The landlord accepted its operative attended on 22 April 2021 and declined to carry out damp treatment, concluding it was not required. Following this, it had reconsidered its repairs surveyor’s report and concluded work was needed due to a previous repair being the source of the problem and a further job had been raised and would be organised – necessitating a further attendance. The landlord would carry out any remedial decoration.

On the question of co-ordination of the repairs, the landlord’s email admitted “I can confirm all the job orders were raised on our system at the same time but due to an oversight, the repairs were not planned together. I have since liaised with our planners and all the carpentry jobs will be done on 4 May…”.

The next day (30 April 2021) the resident emailed the landlord noting that despite the fact it had told her the appointment for that day had been cancelled (window easement/broken lock) and rearranged for 4 May 2021, she had been contacted by its operative that morning to arrange access for that day, demonstrating the lack of communication she had referred to the previous day. The landlord apologised for this.

Agreements, policies and procedures

The landlord’s Repairs Policy divides repairs into five categories depending how urgent they are with response times ranging from 4 hours to 90 days. Urgent repairs have a response time of within 5 days; routine repairs 20 days and planned repairs, 90 days.

The Landlord’s Complaints Policy states that the complaint “must be about something that has happened or come to the attention of the complainant within the last 12 months”.

The landlord’s Compensation and Redress Policy sets out its approach to awarding compensation for failings in its service. It states that a claim for compensation can be considered where the resident has been ‘severely inconvenienced’; where appointments have been missed; and where there has been a failure to identify the correct issue or carry out repairs in a satisfactory manner or within an agreed timescale.

The amount of compensation depends upon the impact upon the resident and the extent to which the landlord is to blame for the failing. It is set out in a table as follows: –

Level of Landlord’s responsibility	No material impact	Low impact	Medium impact	High impact
None	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Partial	£10	£25	£100	£250
Full	£25	£50	£250	Up to £1000

Assessment and findings

There is no dispute that the landlord is responsible for these repairs. It has accepted there have been delays. In its stage two complaint response it made the following admission:-

“Reading through the file, I was deeply concerned to see how many different operatives / contractors have visited your property over the past 12 months and yet no one person seems to have taken ownership of your case and acted to pursue the works required through to completion”.

The landlord accepted that a failure to coordinate what was required had already caused delays and inconvenience for the resident. Whilst residents do have to make themselves available for repairs from time to time, this resident had already done this on multiple occasions and yet further was still required from her, and this was due to failings on the landlord’s part. This was further exacerbated by the fact that some repairs had been inadequate – such as to the windows and the toilet area – and needed repeating. Water penetration/dampness had been the outcome which the resident had had to live with. She had had to organise repairs to her flooring as a result.

The landlord also accepted its communication had not been clear, particularly with regard to the obsolete flue pipe, where decisions had been made but not notified to the resident.

As a result of the resident complaining, the landlord’s repairs surveyor visited the property and identified further issues with the window casement and a lock and the architrave around an internal door. In its stage two response the landlord committed itself to resolving all of the outstanding issues and co-ordinating them so the resident was not put to the inconvenience of having them dealt with individually. Unfortunately, this was not successfully implemented and there is evidence which demonstrates that the landlord failed to deliver its intended remedy.

There was a wasted appointment to fix the toilet issue when its operative was denied authority to carry out works despite the landlord having already resolved to take action (22 April 2021). The resident had had to arrange access to the property for that day. A further appointment was wasted to deal with the windows when the landlord’s operative simply forgot to turn up (28 April 2021). An appointment was given at short notice for 30 April 2021 to also deal with a window issue. The resident could not accommodate it due to work commitments and notified the landlord. It confirmed it was cancelled and then the operative tried to attend the next day anyway.

These instances evidence that the landlord failed to adequately manage the appointments and there were several occasions where there was miscommunication as a result.

The resident’s frustration is demonstrated in the evidence, as is a general lack of communication, not just between landlord and resident but between the landlord and its operatives.

The landlord’s offer of compensation of £200 was made before the resident experienced further problems with the landlord’s handling of her repairs, post complaint. However, given that at the time of the complaint response she had had at least one year of problems as a result of the service provided, that offer was already inadequate. The landlord might reasonably have been expected to categorise its failings within the “high category” set out in its policy and offered in excess of the £250 threshold.

Furthermore, as a result of the landlord’s failure to coordinate the remaining repairs and communicate about them effectively – and to therefore put things right – there was added detriment, delay and inconvenience to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would be appropriate for the landlord to offer additional compensation to take this into account. It is reasonable to expect a resident, who has experienced the failure of a remedy, to report a higher level of distress at being put to yet more inconvenience to deal with something they thought had already been resolved.

This Service considers compensation of £400 should be paid. This takes account of both an increased initial offer, but also the additional distress and inconvenience to the resident when the repairs still did not go according to plan. In addition, the landlord has previously offered £200 towards the cost of repairs to the resident’s flooring. It would be fair for the landlord to honour this offer, if it has not already done so, or to adjust the amount where evidence is produced by the resident showing a higher cost.

Finally, for the sake of completeness, it is noted that the landlord’s Complaints Policy states it will only investigate complaints that are made relating to events taking place in the twelve months prior to it. The evidence demonstrates the landlord acted in accordance with that policy.

It is reasonable for a landlord to set a time limit on complaints. This is because, over time, recollections fade and evidence can be lost. Historic issues cannot necessarily be investigated in a way that is fair or reasonable to either party. Whilst there is no evidence the landlord fully explained this in its complaint responses to the resident, it is noted that the landlord tried to make contact with the resident to discuss this three times, on 26, 27 and 28 January 2021 with the resident delaying those discussions on the second two attempts. Ideally, the landlord might have been expected to refer to this in its complaints correspondence, but it did take steps to bring this to the resident’s attention and therefore acted reasonably and in accordance with its policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s property.

Reasons

The landlord admits there were delays to various repairs at the resident’s property, and she had experienced at least 12 months of repair visits. The landlord accepted some repairs had not been adequately carried out and needed repeating. When it offered a resolution to her complaint, it failed to deliver it. There was poor communication with the resident and internally. The resident had to organise repairs to her flooring and live with water penetration and damp. She works and has had to take time offer to accommodate multiple appointments, at least two of which were unproductive.

Orders and/or Recommendations

Orders

This Service orders the landlord to pay compensation to the resident totalling £400.

The landlord should contact this service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order.

Recommendations

The landlord should reoffer the sum of £200 to the resident for her damaged flooring. In the event the resident offers evidence to show a higher loss, the landlord to consider that additional evidence.

The landlord should also contact the resident and check that the repairs identified in this report have now been completed to the resident’s satisfaction, agreeing a plan of action if not.