The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202128246)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128246

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

28 September 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 landlord’s handling of:
    1. Damp and mould within the resident’s property and request for new windows.
    2. The resident’s request to be rehoused on medical grounds.

Jurisdiction

  1. 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 will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which falls properly within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
  3. The resident has stated that part of her complaint is about the landlord’s response to her request to be rehoused on medical grounds. Rehousing requests which are undertaken on behalf of the Local Authority in accordance with its allocation policy are outside the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Complaints about rehousing under a local authority fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident may be able to refer the complaint about this issue to the LGSCO if she wishes to pursue it further.

 

 

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The resident has stated that she is disabled and also stated her children who live with her at the property are also disabled.
  2. On 12 December 2021, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She stated that she was told by the landlord’s operative to wipe down her windows every day to avoid mould. The resident explained that herself and her children are disabled, and it is an unreasonable request to expect her to clean the windows every day to avoid mould. She stated to the landlord that she required new windows.
  3. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident on 24 December 2021. The landlord stated it’s operative inspected the windows and did not identify an issue with them, therefore they did not need replacing. It explained as a one-off gesture of goodwill, it had asked its repairs staff to arrange for the mould to be treated. The landlord also stated that it had asked its neighbourhood team to look into a long term-solution in supporting her cleaning the windows.
  4. On 24 December 2021, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. She explained that she was already following the recommendations made by the landlord’s operative, and she believed the mould on the window was not just a window issue.
  5. The landlord’s surveyor visited the resident’s property on 20 January 2022 and identified high levels of condensation and humidity in the property. The surveyor recommended for the existing bathroom extractor fan to be replaced and an additional extractor fan to be installed in the kitchen. The surveyor also recommended a mould wash to be carried out.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 26 January 2022. The landlord stated to ensure it fully considered all the possible underlying causes, it arranged for its senior surveyor to visit and inspect the resident’s property. The landlord agreed to carry out all the works recommended by the surveyor. The landlord also offered the resident £150 compensation for the delays in identifying and resolving the damp and mould.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated that her desired outcome was for the landlord to deal with the damp and mould within the property and she also stated that she would like to be rehoused.
  8. The landlord’s record shows that the resident was offered an alternative property in April 2022 and landlord has confirmed that the resident has moved to the new property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould within the resident’s property and her request for new windows.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for the repair of windows, walls, floors, and ceilings. The repairs policy explains that the landlord responds to emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 days and routine repairs within 20 days.
  2. The resident reported an issue with her windows to the landlord on 5 November 2021. She explained that every time she takes a shower or puts the heating on, the windows become soaked in condensation.
  3. In response to the resident’s report regarding the condensation on the windows. The landlord’s operative visited the resident’s property to inspect the windows on 2 December 2021. The operative did not identify any issues with the windows at the property and advised the resident that she should air out her property by opening the windows. The resident was also informed that they should clean the windows. However, she explained to the landlord that it was an unreasonable request to ask her to clean mould off the windows, particularly because she stated that her and her family have disabilities.
  4. The landlord recognised and acknowledged the resident’s concerns in its stage one complaint response about cleaning the mould off the windows. The landlord agreed as a one-off gesture to arrange an appointment for its repairs team to clean the mould off the resident’s windows. The landlord also explained that it has asked its neighbourhood team to look into long-term solutions for cleaning the resident’s windows. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer to clean the windows and consider other long-term options, particularly because the resident had expressed concerns about her and her children’s disabilities.
  5. The Ombudsman believes it was reasonable for the landlord not to replace the windows. This is because there were no repair issues or faults identified with the windows. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified contractor concerning the state of repair of the windows and the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to confirm this opinion was incorrect. The landlord would only be expected to replace the resident’s windows if there was a repair issue identified with them and the windows were unrepairable. However, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to arrange an inspection in relation to the condensation and damp and mould within the property sooner than it did.
  6. The landlord recognised in its stage 2 complaint response issued in January 2022, that it was appropriate for it to arrange for its surveyor to inspect the resident’s property to identify the cause of the condensation, damp, and mould. The surveyor recommended several works to resolve the damp and mould. The surveyor recommended for the existing bathroom extractor fan to be replaced and an additional extractor fan to be installed in the kitchen. It was also recommended that a mould wash was carried out at the property.
  7. In February 2022, the landlord contacted the resident on several occasions to arrange an appointment date and time to carry out the works recommended by the surveyor. However, initially the resident and her family were unwell, so this contributed to the delay in the landlord arranging an appointment. The landlord also contacted the resident in March 2022 to arrange an appointment to complete the works. The resident agreed that the landlord’s contractors could attend on 24 March 2022 to complete the works. However, the resident then contacted the landlord around a week before the appointment date and requested the appointment to be cancelled.
  8. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord carried out reasonable steps to try to arrange an appointment to complete the works to resolve the damp and mould. The resident’s cancellation of the appointment was outside of the landlord’s control, and it is acknowledged that it would not have been able to go ahead with the scheduled works. In April 2022, the resident was offered an alternative property to move to. Therefore, the damp and mould are no longer an outstanding issue for her.
  9. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to identify the need for a surveyor inspection sooner than it did. However, the landlord did acknowledge the mistake during its internal complaint procedure, which was acceptable. The landlord also agreed to carry out the works recommended by the surveyor to resolve the damp and mould issues. The landlord also offered the resident £150 compensation to recognise the delays in identifying and resolving the damp and mould. Therefore, in this instance, the Ombudsman believes the landlord took reasonable steps to try to resolve the damp and mould and recognise its delay in inspecting the damp and mould at the property.
  10. The compensation offered to the resident was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it awards compensation of between £100 to £200 for cases where there is evidence of a moderate degree of inconvenience or distress. The compensation offered was also compliant with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The Remedies Guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact. Although the resident experienced distress and inconvenience because of the slight delay in the landlord arranging for the surveyor to inspect the damp and mould at her property, there was no permanent impact as the landlord attempted on several occasions to carry out the works recommended by the surveyor to resolve the damp and mould. Then, shortly after the resident moved to a different property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the compensation proportionately reflected the delay in the landlord arranging for a surveyor to inspect the damp and mould, and it amounts to reasonable redress in this case.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint relating to the resident’s request to be rehoused is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould within the resident’s property and her request for new windows.

Recommendations 

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its original offer made in its stage 2 complaint response of £150 in compensation if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding that there was reasonable redress by the landlord in this case is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.