Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202342331)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342331

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

22 August 2024


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 handling of:

  1. The resident’s request for a move to a more suitable property.
  2. Reports of the lift breaking down.
  3. The resident’s request for adaptations to the property.

Jurisdiction

2.             What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

3.             In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. The resident was seeking a permanent move through the housing needs team due to her medical need and overcrowding. Such matters are administered by the landlord as a local authority rather than under its landlord function and so the handling of the resident’s request for a move to a more suitable property falls outside of the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman. If the resident wishes to pursue this element of her complaint, she should contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Background

4.             The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She moved into the 2 bed, 5th floor flat with her partner, son, and daughter in January 2010. The landlord has confirmed that the resident has several health conditions.

5.             The landlord has not provided any contact information between itself and the resident prior to the complaint being submitted by the resident on 1 December 2023. The complaint was in connection with the small lift in the building continuously breaking down (at this time, the larger lift was being replaced). She said the loss of service impacted her ability to leave her home, go to work and carry out day to day activities. The resident asked the landlord for an immediate move to more suitable accommodation.

6.             The landlord’s complaint response on 20 December 2023 confirmed the lift had been out of service, and it apologised for the inconvenience. It explained what action had been taken to keep it in service. It advised it had put contractors on the ground floor of the building to assist residents if the lift was out of service for more than 24 hours. The landlord added that it was working with an Occupational Therapist (OT) to help vulnerable residents find suitable temporary accommodation. It noted that it understood the resident was looking to move permanently and explained additional assistance could be explored while waiting to hear about a permanent move. The complaint was upheld and £60 was added to the resident’s rent account for the inconvenience caused.

7.             The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 21 December 2023. She said she felt trapped due to the lift breakdowns; was struggling to use the bath; and her household needs had changed due to the age of her children. She told the landlord she needed to move to a 3-bed adapted house.

8.             The landlord provided its final complaint response on 18 January 2024. It advised the decision on rehousing would be made by its housing needs team so the desired outcome could not be provided as part of the complaint process. It confirmed the resident had declined the offer of temporary accommodation during the lift replacement as a permanent move was requested. The landlord said the neighbourhood team would continue to support the resident while the rehousing decision was being made, and as a medium-term solution, it could look at installing a wet room if an OT assessment approved the proposal. The landlord upheld the complaint on the basis it should have looked at adapting the property sooner than it did.

Post completion of the complaint process

9.             The resident contacted this Service on 12 March 2024. She confirmed she wanted the Ombudsman to investigate the complaint, stating she wanted the landlord to carry out the adaptations work, or a move to a more suitable property. The landlord has confirmed the replacement of the large lift was completed on 29 February 2024 and the lift was in service from that date. On 3 April 2024, the small lift was taken out of service, replaced and was back in service on 10 July 2024. The resident moved to a 3-bed house in June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10.        The resident has referred to several health conditions which have been impacted by the property and the lift service. While we do not doubt this, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. If the resident wishes to pursue this issue, she should seek legal advice. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused.

11.        In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme (in place at the time of the complaint), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. As such, this report will focus on events from June 2023 (6 months before the complaint was made in December 2023) up to the final complaint response (18 January 2024).

12.        In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman considers complaints about the actions of local authority social services OT functions. Our investigation of the adaptations aspect of this complaint is therefore focused on the actions of the landlord in how it advised the resident and liaised with the OT service.

Lift

13.        It is evident from the repair history provided by the landlord, that the lift experienced multiple breakdowns which would have affected the residents who rely on it to access their home. We have not however been provided with any specific contact between the landlord and the resident prior to the complaint being made. Due to the lack of evidence, it is difficult to determine if the landlord had been made aware of the impact of lift outages on the resident before receiving the complaint and if it responded appropriately.

14.        The landlord has demonstrated that when a lift fault report was received, it passed this to the contractor to attend. However, it is noted that the landlord has not provided a procedure or service level agreement for responding to reports of lift failures. As such, the Ombudsman is unable to determine if the landlord responded within an appropriate or agreed timescale. A recommendation has been made below in this regard.

15.        Following several reports of breakdowns in September and October 2023, the landlord wrote to its vulnerable residents within the block of flats to apologise for the inconvenience caused. It advised of the work it was doing with the contractors and in-house team, and how it had engaged with a contractor to assist residents with welfare needs. It provided a named officer as a point of contact for residents who were worried and needed assistance. The Ombudsman finds this reasonable. The landlord demonstrated its awareness of how the breakdowns could impact its vulnerable residents; it aimed to reassure residents that it was working to resolve the faults; and it recognised the likely inconvenience and potential need for additional assistance.

16.        Furthermore, on 24 November 2023, the landlord sent OT) referral forms and letters to all the vulnerable residents in the building. The OT was to assess and provide the landlord with recommendations for the residents who may not be able to manage the stairs if the lifts were out of order. This was then to assist in finding temporary accommodation for those residents. This was fair and appropriate. It showed the landlord was reacting to the potential impact on its residents and was willing to collaborate with other services to find temporary accommodation to reduce any impact.

17.        The resident confirmed receipt of the forms but told the landlord her case was already with the OT. The landlord contacted the OT to verify this but was told a new referral was needed. The landlord’s evidence showed it acted quickly in providing a new referral form to the resident – this was appropriate as the landlord showed it was trying to support the resident. The resident however told the landlord that temporary accommodation would not meet her needs – she told the landlord she was in contact with the housing needs team, and they would refer her to the OT to support with a permanent move. There was therefore no failing on the part of the landlord in not progressing the temporary accommodation option further at this time.

18.        In the stage 1 complaint response dated 20 December 2023, the landlord confirmed the lift had been out of service for 7 days from 19 September 2023. While it apologised sincerely for the inconvenience, it explained the high number of faults was due to the age of the lift. It advised it was sending engineers and technicians to replace parts to keep it in service and, following a ‘super service’ completed on 8 November 2023, the lift had only been out of service for 2 hours.

19.        The landlord reaffirmed the availability of the contractor who was there to assist residents. It suggested other assistance options to the resident such as floating support and tenancy sustainment services while the option of a permanent move was being assessed. This was reasonable – while the landlord was unable to offer the move requested, it nevertheless explored other support options as that process was ongoing.

20.        The landlord used its compensation and reimbursement policy which has a specific section for lift failures. In recognition of the lifts being out of service and the inconvenience this caused, the landlord added £60 to the resident’s rent account as a gesture of goodwill. This was a resolution-focused approach from the landlord and in excess of what would be expected using the calculation stated in the policy.

21.        In summary, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of the lift breaking down. Although the landlord could not predict or foresee when the lifts would break down, it responded to the reports when made and appropriately passed them to the lift contractor to repair. It demonstrated its awareness of how the breakdowns could be affecting the residents in the building and put support in place. It offered to provide additional assistance to the resident when the lifts were out of service. The landlord showed collaborative working with the OT and made an appropriate offer to rehouse the resident to temporary accommodation while the work took place to the lift.

Adaptations

22.        The landlord has told this Service that it does not have any records of the resident directly contacting the adaptations team requesting an adaptation. The proposal to install a wet room in the bathroom of the flat was suggested by the landlord in its final complaint response. This was in recognition that a move to a suitable alternative property through the housing register may take time. This was a reasonable alternative solution to offer, albeit the landlord confirmed the work was subject to an assessment and approval by both the OT and the resident – this appropriately managed the resident’s expectations.

23.        The landlord said it would contact the OT to progress this or the resident could contact them directly. The landlord has not provided evidence to show when it made the referral, or if it chased the OT for updates or progress. The landlord has confirmed no adaptations were installed before the resident moved out in June 2024. It said it did not receive OT instructions to proceed with the work which is a stipulation within its aids and adaptations policy. Although it was appropriate not to proceed without these instructions, as the landlord had already apologised for not suggesting the work sooner, it would have been reasonable for it to contact the OT with the aim of moving the process on. The Ombudsman finds this a service failure as it demonstrates the landlord did not learn from its previous delay in suggesting adaptations.

24.        In summary, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the resident’s request for adaptations to the property. There was no failure in the landlord not responding to a direct request from the resident as it was the landlord’s initial suggestion to fit a wet room. However, our finding is due to the landlord’s lack of evidence to show it followed up on the referral or chased the OT for the approval. While the Ombudsman cannot assess the action, or lack of, from the OT, it is our view that the landlord could have been more proactive in chasing the OT. In recognition of this, the landlord should offer compensation due to the likely inconvenience caused.

Determination

25.        In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a move to a more suitable property is outside of our jurisdiction.

26.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of the lift breaking down.

27.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the resident’s request for adaptations to the property.

Orders

28.        Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:

  1. Write a letter of apology to the resident for the failure identified in the report.
  2. Pay the resident an additional £50 for its failure to make pro-active contact with the OT for the assessment and approval of adaptations. This should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed.

29.        The landlord should provide this Service with evidence to confirm it has complied with the above orders within the timescale given.

Recommendations

30.        If it has not already done so, the landlord should ensure that it has added £60 credit to the resident’s rent account as per the stage 1 complaint response.

31.        The landlord should consider adding a lift maintenance section to its repairs policy. This may include the process and timescales for attending to reports of breakdowns and the services the landlord will provide to its residents when long-term breakdowns occur. This would set resident’s expectations and allow the landlord to monitor performance against relevant timescales.