Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202112145)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112145

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

28 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a flood at his property.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a two bedroomed flat on the second floor of a block of similar properties.
3. No specific records from the day of the resident’s report of the flood have been provided by the landlord. Because of that, many of the details below have been taken from the resident’s complaint email to the landlord about the matter.
4. In an email to the landlord on 13 July 2021 the resident reported that on the afternoon of 12 July 2021 his bedroom was flooded “due to the heavy rain we had and the cracks in the balcony above me”. He explained that he immediately called the landlord, who, he said, had already received many calls about flooding on the estate. He said that the landlord told him somebody would be out to make the property safe and that he would then receive a call with hotel reservations (for temporary accommodation).
5. Shortly after his call a contractor attended and took pictures of the flooded area but did not check the electrics. The resident says the contractor advised him that a plant pot had been covering the drain on the balcony above him preventing the water from draining properly. The landlord did not call with hotel reservations.
6. The resident went on to explain that that one of the landlord’s operatives arrived at his property at 9am on 13 July 2021 and explained that the reason nobody had called him or made the electrics safe was that the landlord had been inundated with call outs (due to the bad weather), had to completely decant another building, and it had been a very busy time.
7. The resident said he felt the landlord should have done more to ensure the balconies on the top floor were weatherproof and that would have avoided the “damage and inconvenience” he had experienced. He said the landlord had been made aware of that issue previously and had not carried out adequate works to put it right. He felt that the housing officer’s regular checking of the communal areas should have highlighted issues with guttering and drainage. He also listed his personal possessions that had been damaged in the flood.
8. The landlord’s records show that it acknowledged the resident’s email the day it was received. During a subsequent email exchange about compensation for damaged items, it said it could consider a claim against its compensation policy where it accepted responsibility. The landlord directed the resident to his home contents insurance provider in the first instance. The resident replied that making a claim through his contents insurance would mean paying an excess, and future higher premiums and that he should not be inconvenienced due to the landlord’s negligence. He said it was the landlord’s responsibility to maintain the communal areas and that he had suffered a loss because they had not done so. The landlord replied that whilst it would consider any loss that it was responsible for, it would “not be responsible for the flash flood which has impacted a large part of London and damaged hundreds of homes.” It again advised him to go through his contents insurance.
9. The landlord issued its stage one response on 27 July 2021. It noted that the resident did not receive the call back about hotel accommodation until 14 July 2021. It apologised for the delays in contacting him, and in making the electrics safe and offered a good will gesture of £100 in recognition of its poor customer service. It advised him to make a claim via his contents insurance for the damaged/lost possessions as it said the floods were beyond its control and not something it could be held liable for. In response to the resident’s view that the landlord was negligent due to the cracks in the balcony, it said that during an inspection by the landlord on 15 July 2021 no cracks were seen, but a plant pot had been covering a drain, and the guttering was “slightly blocked”, which may have prevented water draining away as quickly as it should.
10. The landlord apologised that it had no record of the resident reporting issues over a year ago and explained that improved record keeping was one of its priorities and that record keeping had significantly improved over the last year. It advised that it was also in the process of co-ordinating a flood management plan and also arranging for the guttering to be cleared by mid-August. It also advised that from August it would be advertising block inspections that residents could join the landlord for.
11. On 29 July 2021 the resident escalated his complaint, He repeated his concerns about making a home insurance claim, and questioned why the estate inspections had not picked up the communal area issues, particularly the plant pot over a drain. He questioned whether a qualified surveyor had inspected the balcony during the inspection on 15 July 2021, and requested compensation for the food lost in the fridge.
12. The landlord issued its stage two response on 23 August 2021. In response to the resident’s claim that “maintenance works to the balconies and gutters could have been undertaken beforehand which would have mitigated the impact of the flood upon [his] property” it explained that it employs an Estate Services Officer (ESO) to carry out inspections on the estate and to ensure that any communal repairs are reported and rectified. The ESO is not a qualified surveyor but that it had considered the resident’s suggestion and thought it would be desirable to have additional quarterly inspections conducted by a member of staff who is qualified and/or highly experienced in the built environment field.
13. It also stated that its neighbourhood managers also conducted more thorough block checks once a month and that the housing manager and a surveyor would conduct the next check on 15 September 2021. It stated that it did “fully accept that the ESO should have noted that [his] neighbour had a plant pot on top of a drain, and that this could cause an obstruction.” and that its management would speak to the ESO involved, to ask them to ensure balconies were checked, including the placement of any tenants’ own items and would review the ESO’s inspection reports over the next few months.
14. It acknowledged that the lack of preventative maintenance of gutters and downpipes at his property was a valid concern and reported that clearing of gutters at his property would now be increased to twice yearly, in February and August. In respect of compensation, it stated “irrespective of whether the impact of the unprecedented rainfall on the evening of the flood could have been partially mitigated by planned preventative maintenance work… [the landlord was correct] to advise you to pursue this via an insurance claim, as damage to goods falls outside of the scope of [its]compensation policy.”
15. The landlord offered £125 compensation for the loss of food in the fridge freezer, as it acknowledged that was due to its delay turning the electricity back on. It concluded that whilst the damage caused by the flood itself was largely outside of its control, it was upholding the complaint based upon both the fact that “could have done more in terms of planned preventative maintenance, and also the aforementioned delay in terms of checking [his] electrics, leading to the avoidable loss of perishable goods.” It gave details of how to contact this Service if the resident remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

16. The resident reported the flood to the landlord on the afternoon of 12 July 2021 and was advised he would receive a call back later that day to arrange hotel accommodation and to make the electrics safe. Neither of those things happened. However, the landlord acknowledged both issues in its complaint responses, and explained why it had not done what it had intended to do (due the impact of the sudden inclement weather affecting many of its homes) It apologised for the delay and offered the resident a good will gesture of £100, in recognition of the poor service he had received. It also offered £125 compensation for the food lost in the fridge. This was reasonable redress for those particular failings as the amount was in line with its compensation policy.
17. The landlord’s compensation policy states “Residents are advised to take out home contents insurance at the start of their tenancy to insure their personal possessions and decorations against damage or loss. All liability claims against the [landlord] should be made to [its] insurance team using the Housing Liability Claim Form and will be dealt with outside this policy.”
18. As per its policy, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have signposted the resident to its insurance team, as he had made clear that he believed it was, at least in part, liable for his damaged items, and the landlord had accepted that its actions, or inaction, may have played a part, and so there was at least the potential for a successful claim on its own insurance.
19. It is not the role of this Ombudsman to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is the role of this Service to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures. The landlord’s failure to signpost the resident to its insurance team was not in line with its compensation policy or the circumstances of the complaint, and was therefore not fair or reasonable.
20. The landlord acknowledged where its service was less than it should have been, thoroughly investigated the resident’s concerns, apologised, gave explanations which were reasonable in the circumstances, committed to improve its services by training staff, and offered a reasonable level of compensation. Nonetheless, in the face of the resident’s view of its liability for his damaged items, and its own inconclusive investigations about the factors leading to the flood, it failed to act in line with its compensation policy by not referring the resident to make a claim against its own insurance.

Determination (decision)

21. In accordance with paragraph 54 of The Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

22. The landlord did not signpost the resident to its insurance team, which it should have done as per its compensation policy.

Orders and recommendations

23. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay compensation of £75 to the resident in recognition of its failure to signpost him to its insurance team.
    2. Write to the resident providing the necessary information and forms for him to make a claim against its insurance, in line with its compensation policy.
24. The landlord should complete both orders within four weeks of the date of this decision and notify this Service when it has done so.