Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202119574)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119574

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

9 February 2023

 

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 security concerns for the building.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, a flat on the 9th floor of a tower block to which the landlord owns the freehold.
  2. It is not disputed that the landlord has an overall responsibility to ensure security at the building. A concierge is employed by the landlord as part of this service delivery provision. The building, at the time of the complaint, was undergoing extensive building works which required scaffolding to be erected.
  3. On 16 September 2021 the resident complained to the landlord regarding 2 incidents of individuals climbing on the scaffolding, on one occasion this was to retrieve a ball and on a separate occasion the individual entered a 5th floor property via a balcony following another the tenant of that property being locked out of their flat. The resident was concerned that on both occasions the concierge had been unaware that people had accessed the property via the scaffolding. The resident wanted to know why the concierge had not been aware of these incidents and was also looking for an explanation as to why the Police hadn’t been notified. In addition, the resident was querying if the alarms installed on site were fake alarms.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint on 30 September 2021. It explained that the concierge was unaware of the 2 incidents as they are only able to see activity when they are carrying out patrols, however the landlord confirmed that it had arranged for additional security guards to patrol the area. The landlord also said that residents were advised to call the Police if they witnessed any incidents of trespassing. The landlord explained that the alarms are monitored remotely and allow access to footage should a trespass occur. Furthermore, the landlord confirmed it had arranged the installation of temporary fencing with the aim of further deterring any intruders.
  5. The resident requested escalation of the complaint, expressing dissatisfaction at the security of the property and reiterating points raised in his previous stage one complaint. In addition the resident disputed any extra security patrols taking place, he wanted to know why the property was not lit up and he said that the concierge spent most of the time in the office. He also said that the security cameras on the lower levels weren’t able to be monitored by the concierge.
  6. The landlord responded with their final position to the complaint on 16 November 2021. It confirmed the extra security measures including security guard patrols and the installation of temporary fencing. It provided photographs of the tower being brightly lit. It also agreed that the concierge does not have access to the cameras on the scaffold as this is monitored by an alarm company, however it advised the concierge’s CCTV view can be increased upon agreement of other residents (as this would need to be funded by the Estate Improvement Budget). The landlord confirmed that the alarm had been triggered on the occasion where an individual had climbed the scaffolding to access a balcony. The landlord explained it believed it was reasonable for the concierge to spend the majority of the time in their office as this is where the bulk of their work takes place. The landlord did not uphold the complaint.
  7. The complaint was brought to the Ombudsman on 23 November 2021 as the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. The resident disputed the security patrols occurred as he had never seen them, the resident also disputed that there is an alarm system whereby a voice advises any trespassers to leave as he had never heard this. In addition, the resident requested alarms installed on all floors and not just the first floor.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s security concerns for the building

  1. The resident raised several concerns he had for the building’s security following scaffolding being erected and it is reasonable that he would expect the landlord to address these. The landlord’s complaint responses confirm that it acknowledged its responsibility to take appropriate security measures at the building.
  2. The landlord issued a full response to the issues raised at both stage one and stage two of the complaints process. It confirmed the security measures that had been implemented, including the installation of temporary fencing, ensuring there was adequate lighting and providing an explanation as to how the alarms and CCTV cameras worked.
  3. In addition the landlord confirmed the implementation of additional security in the form of patrols. The landlord also requested for the concierge to be notified by the alarm company if there was any breach so that immediate action could be taken on site. Furthermore the landlord requested that the building contractor ensured the site was left as secure as possible when leaving. These were appropriate additional actions to take and demonstrated the landlord taking the residents reports seriously by thoroughly investigating the reported issues and enacting measures to improve security based upon its findings.
  4. The landlord provided an explanation as to why the concierge was unaware of the intrusion and why the police hadn’t been notified. In addition, the landlord explained the possibility of the concierge’s CCTV view being extended, although the cost would need to be covered by the residents which was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord was entitled to take into account financial implications, both for itself and for the residents of the building, in its consideration of the issues presented here.
  5. The resident’s concerns were understandable as he had witnessed two separate incidents where the erected scaffolding had contributed to inappropriate access to the building. In responding to his complaint, the landlord clearly sought to identify any areas of concern, put in place reasonable and cost-effective measures that might improve the overall security at the building and sought to reassure the resident that similar incidents were less likely given the measures it had taken. In all the circumstances of the case, the landlord has offered a full and fair response to the issues raised by the resident in his complaint.
  6. Following the completion of the complaints process, the resident raised further concerns about the security patrols the landlord put in place to help improve security. The landlord did not have the opportunity to respond to this issue whilst the complaint was active. However, given the resident’s ongoing concerns, it would help the situation for the landlord to clarify to him what it is doing to monitor the effectiveness of this process. The Ombudsman expects landlord’s to have measures in place to ensure that records are retained of service delivery; providing this feedback to the resident will provide reassurance to both parties that the service is taking place.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about its response to the resident’s security concerns for the building.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord confirm the measures it is taking to ensure the effectiveness of the security patrol process it has put in place.