Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202217632)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217632

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

4 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 complaint concerns the resident’s requests for the landlord to:
   1. Remove shelving from the property and replace it with a built-in wardrobe.
   2. Amend the postcode on the tenancy agreement.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a flat. The property is located within the boundary of a different local authority to the landlord.
3. The resident moved into the property in September 2020 and has corresponded with the landlord from that point about outstanding repairs, the condition of the property and issues with the postcode. The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 June 2022 and requested to raise a formal complaint. She described the elements of the complaint as:
   1. She was having difficulty in receiving deliveries due to the postcode of the property being changed and had requested that the landlord provide her with a new tenancy agreement to sign with the updated postcode.
   2. The bedroom of the property was not suitable for her child, who had medical conditions. The built-in shelves in the bedroom were a hazard as her child would attempt to climb them. She had requested that the shelves be removed and replaced with a built-in wardrobe.
   3. She was disappointed that the landlord had not sent out a surveyor to inspect the bedroom despite discussing the issue with her housing officer.
4. The landlord sent a stage one complaint response on 30 June 2022, visited the property on 2 August 2022 and then sent a stage two complaint response on 4 August 2022. In its responses, the landlord:
   1. Explained that after the postcode was changed by the Post Office, it had updated its records to the new postcode but as the property fell within the boundary of a differently local authority, it was the other local authority’s responsibility to process the change for the resident’s Council Tax information and other records.
   2. Noted that in its stage one response it had informed the resident that it would not issue a new tenancy agreement as in order to do so it would have to create a new tenancy, but that it would prepare a letter to be added to the current tenancy agreement with the correct postcode. The landlord further explained that there had been a delay in providing the letter as it had to wait for the other local authority to complete the changes to its own records. It confirmed that these changes had now been completed and the letter sent to the resident.
   3. Apologised to the resident for the significant delay in responding to her request for the bedroom shelving to be removed and a wardrobe installed in their place. It explained that while these works would be normally considered improvements to the property and therefore the responsibility of the resident to undertake, it should have informed the resident of this in a timely manner when she first made the request 18 months before raising the complaint.
   4. Confirmed that following its visit to the property on 2 August 2022 it had agreed, as a goodwill gesture, to remove the shelves and make a payment of £300 towards a wardrobe in recognition of the poor communication and delays experienced by the resident.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

5. Sections 5.3 and 5.4 of the tenancy agreement confirm that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the property and that the tenant can make alterations or improvements to the property once they have received written permission from the landlord.
6. The landlord’s website sets out its service standards. This states that it aims to respond to all enquires within 10 working days and for more complex enquiries, it will notify the tenant within 10 working days if it requires more time.
7. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering a discretionary payment/goodwill gesture in circumstances where it has “no legal obligation to make this type of compensation but has chosen to do so to compensate our residents for the loss or injustice they have experienced”. The policy recommends a payment of £200 to £500 when a complainant has experienced “high impact” service failure. This is defined by the landlord as “a serious failure in service standards. This could include the severity of an event, a persistent failure over a long period, or an unacceptable number of attempts to resolve and address the complaint. The claimant will have suffered a considerable degree of inconvenience or distress as a result”.

The removal of bedroom shelving

8. When the landlord received the resident’s request to remove the shelving from the bedroom and replace it with a wardrobe, it had a duty to respond to the matter in line with its obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures.
9. It is not in dispute that the shelving was in good repair. Therefore, in line with the clause of the tenancy agreement detailed above, the responsibility for their removal and replacement with a built-in wardrobe would normally lie with the resident once they had been given written approval from the landlord. However, there has been clear service failure by the landlord in responding to this issue. The landlord did not properly respond to the issue for 18 months, and it was not until the resident raised a formal complaint that the issue was resolved. The landlord also accepted that it should have responded to the resident’s request to remove the shelving as they were a hazard to her son separately from her request to have a wardrobe installed.

10. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, offer compensation and explain what steps it had taken to improve its service. This position is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It put things right by arranging to remove the shelving and offer £300 compensation. It looked to learn from its mistakes by ensuring that in the future its staff consider issues of health and safety separately from alternations and improvements.

11. The landlord’s offer of £300 compensation was made in line with its payments guidance for service failure of high impact detailed in its compensation policy. This payment is also broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This suggests a payment of £100 to £600 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration by a landlord. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. Therefore, a payment of £300 that recognised the poor communication and service experienced by the resident, the significant length of time it took the landlord to respond properly to her requests, for the landlord not considering the removal of the shelving separately from the installation of the wardrobe, and the inconvenience caused to the resident it having to raise a formal complaint in order to reach a resolution to this element of the complaint is appropriate in the circumstances. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Amending the postcode on the tenancy agreement

12. As the resident’s property falls within a boundary of a different local authority, this service can only assess the actions of the landlord’s actions for the issues it has a responsibility for. Moreover, this service can only consider the actions of a local authority when it is acting in its capacity as a landlord.
13. The landlord has stated that it updated its records when the postcode was changed. This has not been disputed by the resident. The resident did however request for a new tenancy to be issued with the updated postcode.
14. There are no provisions in the clauses of the tenancy agreement to make amendments to it once it had been signed. In order for the resident to receive a tenancy agreement with the new postcode, the landlord would therefore have to terminate the current tenancy. The landlord was under no obligation to do this, and it was reasonable for it to decline the request. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to issue a letter confirming the change in the postcode to add to the tenancy documents. Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure in how the landlord responded to this element of the complaint.

Determination

15. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it responded to her request to remove shelving and install a wardrobe which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves this element of the complaint.
16. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision not to amend the postcode on the tenancy agreement.

Recommendation

17. As the finding of reasonable redress was made based on the landlord’s offer of £300 compensation, it is recommended that the landlord pays this to the resident if it has not done so already.