Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202302793)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302793

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

20 September 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:
    1. Handling of repairs to a toilet, including an operative’s conduct.
    2. Handing of repairs to a balcony.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a studio flat. The tenancy started on 16 January 2023. The resident has disabilities which affect her mobility, an autoimmune condition and asthma.
  2. The landlord arranged for the balcony of the property to be cleaned on 29 December 2022 before the resident moved in . However, once the resident moved in, as she was unhappy with the standard of the cleaning it arranged for it to be cleaned a  second time in January 2023. On 6 February 2023 in an email about a number of unrelated issues the resident mentioned that her balcony appeared to be leaking when it rained and that there was an issue with the toilet flush .
  3. On 20 February 2023 two of the landlord’s operatives repaired the resident’s toilet as the water pressure when she flushed was low. However, at 4.29pm that day the resident reported that the toilet was leaking and was flooding the bathroom. The landlord advised her that it would send somebody between 5 and 6pm. The resident called her father to help clean up the water.
  4. At 6.30pm the out of hours operative (Operative A) arrived and was able to stop the leak.Theresident rang the out of hours service at around 7pm to say she was unhappy with a number of Operative A’s actions and wanted him to leave. These included asking if he could borrow a phone charger, not wearing clean shoe covers or new gloves after going outsideand placing a bloody tissue on top of her washing machine. She said when she asked him not to do this because of her health, he was dismissive.
  5. The resident said that the out of hours officer advised he would find out which operative it was. However, as he was unable to confirm this, he called back 15 minutes later to ask the resident to put the operative on the phone. The resident explained that both her parents were now there and the situation was under control. Operative A resolved the leak and said follow on repairs would be completed the next day. He advised the resident that due to the toilet not being fully repaired, to pour water down the toilet if she used it in the meantime. He returned the next morning and waited for the resident’s father to arrive before completing the repairs. The resident also contacted the landlord that day to ask about the complaints procedure.
  6. On 26 February 2023 the resident raised a complaint about the operatives causing the toilet leak, the delay in arriving to fix it and Operative A’s behaviour. She said her belongings had been damaged by the leak. She explained that she had concerns about her health due to  her autoimmune condition and the fact that she was awaiting an operation at the time for which she would need a clear covid test. She asked that in future all operatives wear clean shoe coverings and gloves when visiting her property. She also said she was unhappy with the balcony as there were still dried pigeon droppings and it leaked. She mentioned that she had experienced an unrelated missed appointment in the past.
  7. On 6 March 2023 the landlord inspected the balcony and found no leak. In its stage 1 response on 13 March 2023, the landlord advised it would contact her to repaint the balcony.  It also apologised that its operative had caused the toilet leak (which was due to not tightening a valve). It also apologised that Operative A did not arrive before 6pm to address it but said 6.30pm was still within service level agreement timeframes. It apologised for Operative A’s behaviour and said his manager had addressed it with him and that he accepted that errors were made. It advised that the resident could claim for any damage to belongings caused by the leak via its liability insurance and provided a link. It awarded £100 compensation for the impact and £20 missed appointment payment for the previous missed appointment.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on as she said the water had damaged her hoover, which she needed to control dust which triggered her asthma. She also had to use cleaning supplies to clean up the flood. She requested that the landlord reimburse her £299.16 for both. She also asked for £69.60 reimbursement for a takeaway she had bought on the evening of the leak as it had left her too tired and stressed to cook. She also pointed out she had had 2 missed appointments previously rather than 1. She asked that the landlord increase the £100 compensation payment as it did not reflect the overall time, trouble and distress she had experienced as a result of this series of events.
  9. In its stage 2 response on 23 March 2023 the LL said I would increase the missed appointment payment to £40 and add a £10 goodwill gesture but that its £100 compensation was in line with its compensation policy and its decision to refer her to its insurer for damage was in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance. The resident emailed the same day to say she disagreed with the decision and the landlord confirmed she would need to make an insurance claim but “in the event they decide not accept the claim for this, it would be willing to look at that aspect of [her] complaint further”.

Events after the internal complaints process.

  1. The following day on 24 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to ask for more information on how to make the insurance claim. There is no record of LL responding to this email.
  2. On 17 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord (email 1) requesting to escalate her complaint to stage 3 as the landlord had not  responded to her request for insurance details and she was still unhappy with the compensation offered. The landlord advised that there was no stage 3 in its complaints process and signposted her to this Service. The resident asked for confirmation that that this was the landlord’s final response and said that some (unspecified) repairs had not been carried out. The landlord advised that its stage 2 response had been its final response.
  3. Later that day (17 April 2023 ) the resident emailed the landlord again (email 2) in relation to the balcony and said she had heard nothing since the repairs supervisor inspected it on 6 March 2023. She also mentioned various other unrelated issues that had not been mentioned during the complaints process.
  4. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and felt it had not taken her vulnerability into account. However, the escalation request provided to us was a copy of email 2 from 17 April 2023, rather than the escalation request from March 2023. As it was unclear whether all issues of the complaint had been addressed, on 10 October 2023 the Ombudsman contacted the landlord for clarification. We suggested that if not all issues had been addressed it either provide a follow on stage 2 response or open a new complaint.
  5. The landlord sent the resident a follow on stage 2 response on 17 October 2023. It said the resident had not mentioned the balcony repairs when she escalated her complaint to stage 2. However, it said it could have commented on them in its stage 2 response and should have checked the status of the repairs when she mentioned them in her email on 17 April 2023. It confirmed that repairs to the balcony were completed in May 2023. It said as the resident had told its repairs supervisor that she was happy with the work it had assumed no further work was needed. However, as she had since clarified that she had meant that she was only “somewhat happy” it would arrange for it to be repainted. It said it would also be addressing all other unrelated repairs.
  6. In a further follow up email on 2 November 2023, the landlord awarded £500 compensation, which it said was for the damaged items mentioned in her escalation request on 15 March 2023 , the overall inconvenience in pursuing the outstanding repairs, as well as the complaint itself and the impact it had had on her. It apologised that although it had advised her how to submit a claim in its Stage 1 response, it had not addressed that aspect when she emailed again on 17th April 2023.
  7. In a further follow up email on  17 November 2023, it confirmed the repainting of the balcony was completed on 6 November and that the resident had confirmed she was satisfied with the work.  As the resident had mentioned that she’d found out some time after the toilet leak that an air conditioning unit had also been damaged by the leak, it advised her that she would need to make an insurance claim for that item.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. The resident has referred to the landlord’s actions impacting on her health. We can give consideration to any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord. We can also assess whether the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities during its complaints process. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is because we cannot establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and/or inaction and the resident’s health. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer. This is in line with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme which states:
  2. ‘The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.’

Handling of repairs to a toilet, including an operative’s conduct.

  1. The landlord’s repair policy has the following repair timeframes:
    1. Critical repairs- (where there is a serious safety hazard) within 4 hours.
    2. Emergency repairs-(such as no power) within 24 hours
    3. Urgent repairs- ( such as containable leaks) within 5 working days.
    4. Routine repairs within 20 working days
    5. Planned works  within 90 working days.
    6. Out of hours emergency repairs( such as serious leaks and burst pipes) will be attended to in under 4 hours. In all cases the primary objective is to ‘make safe’ therefore it may be necessary for a follow-up visit to complete the repair fully.
  2. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for the fact that the toilet leak was caused by one of its operatives failing to tighten a valve whilst carrying out repairs to the toilet. Once the resident reported the leak it also attended in just over 2 hours, which was in line with its responsive repairs policy timeframe of 4 hours and therefore reasonable. The landlord also took appropriate steps to address the concerns the resident had raised about Operative A’s conduct. It was reasonable that his manager discussed his behaviour with him and would be monitoring it.
  3. The resident said that the leak had damaged her belongings including her hoover and asked the landlord to pay her £299.16. Therefore, its decision to signpost the resident to its insurer for any damaged belongings was reasonable. This was in line with its compensation policy which states that ‘All liability claims against the Council must be made to our Insurance Team using the Housing Liability Claim Form’.
  4. However, it then failed to respond to the resident’s email on 24 March 2023, asking for more information about how to make a claim. Therefore, it was reasonable that in its follow on responses in October and November 2023 it made an additional compensation payment of £500 which in part covered the £299.16 the resident had originally asked for the damaged belongings. It also included an amount to recognise the impact of having to chase up both the insurance information along with the outstanding balcony delays mentioned in the section of this report related to the balcony repairs. As the resident had not mentioned damage to an air conditioning unit in her original request (which we acknowledge was because she had not noticed it at that point), it was reasonable that the landlord ask her to submit an insurance claim for that item.
  5. The Ombudsman considers the additional £500 to be reasonable to address the aspects of the complaint related to the landlord’s failure to reply to the resident’s emails about the insurance, and the balcony repairs (which will be addressed in the section of this report related to the balcony repairs). However, the landlord has provided no evidence that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities when responding to her complaint or when calculating its original compensation payment of £100 for the impact on the resident.
  6. The resident has reported that she has an autoimmune condition along with  a condition which affects her mobility. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered whether these vulnerabilities meant that the impact of its failings was greater than it would have been had she not had those vulnerabilities. For example, the resident has explained that she struggled to try to clean up the leak ( which was caused by the landlord’s operative) because of her mobility issues and was left exhausted and had to call her father to help. Likewise, the operative’s instructions to pour water down the toilet if she used it overnight was something that the resident struggled to do due to her limited mobility.
  7. The landlord has a policy for managing vulnerability around repairs and major works. The policy states that with bathroom works the contractor “will ensure that the WC is renewed and back in working order in one day”. It is not clear whether this means the same day, or whether it applies to all repair works or just planned repair works. However, it highlights that it would have been reasonable to consider the resident’s vulnerability when she was left with a toilet overnight, that would only work if she poured water down it.
  8. Likewise with the resident’s concerns that the operative did not wear clean shoe covers or gloves and left a bloody tissue on her washing machine. The resident has an autoimmune condition and is vulnerable to infection. Therefore, the impact of those actions on the resident is greater than it would be on somebody without an autoimmune condition. However, the landlord failed to take this into account when awarding compensation for the impact. Instead, it stated that £100 was the most it could award for cases where there was a medium impact and “eevidence of a moderate degree of inconvenience or distress”.
  9. As the landlord failed to take the resident’s vulnerabilities and personal circumstance into account the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to a toilet, including an operative’s conduct. We will be ordering the landlord to pay further compensation of £100 to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to address the detriment to the resident. We will also be recommending that the landlord contact the resident to ensure that it has an accurate record of her vulnerabilities and whether it should make any reasonable adjustments.

Handing of repairs to a balcony.

  1. The landlord took appropriate steps for the balcony to be cleaned before the resident moved in and to arrange a second clean once she moved in and was unhappy with the standard of the first clean. It is not clear whether the landlord was already planning to inspect the balcony following the resident raising her concerns about a leak on 6 February 2023. However, once the resident raised her complaint on 26 February 2023 it took appropriate steps to arrange for its repairs supervisor to inspect the balcony on 6 March 2023. As this was within 20 working days of her original report on 6 February 2023  it was inspected within a reasonable timeframe either way.
  2. Although no leak was found, the landlord’s decision to agree to carry out work to repaint the balcony area was reasonable as the resident still had concerns about the appearance of the balcony. As the resident did not mention the balcony in her escalation request it was not unreasonable that the landlord did not mention it in its stage 2 response. However, it would have been helpful if it checked the progress of the balcony works at that point.
  3. In its stage 2 follow on responses in November 2023 the landlord appropriately acknowledged that it should have responded to the resident’s email which mentioned the outstanding balcony works, sent on 17 April 2023, (which was after the end of its internal complaints process). However, the landlord completed the work in May 2023, and carried out further work in November 2023 as the resident explained that she had only been “somewhat happy” with the work carried out in May 2023. In its follow on responses, it also appropriately acknowledged and apologised for any delays and mentioned this aspect of the complaint as part of the reason it paid the resident an additional total compensation amount of £500 in November 2023. Therefore, this Service considers this to be reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to a toilet, including the operative’s conduct.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to a balcony.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for failing to take into account her vulnerabilities.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the failings identified in this report in respect of its handling of repairs to a toilet, including the operative’s conduct.
  2. The landlord is recommended to contact the resident to ensure that it has an accurate up to date record of her vulnerabilities and to discuss whether it needs to make any reasonable adjustments to accommodate them.