Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202436269)

Background

1. The resident lives on the ground floor in a block of flats. She has told us that she has mental and physical health issues, which require careful management and make it important for the property to be warm. She reported that the landlord entered the property without her consent to repair a broken window. She also said that the windows were in poor condition and asked the landlord to replace them. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her concerns and request.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns about poor staff conduct and her window replacement request.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns about poor staff conduct and her window replacement request.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord acted reasonably and proportionately when investigating the resident’s concerns in relation staff conduct and her window replacement request. It considered the resident’s health conditions and offered support beyond its obligations.
7. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint as set out in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, there is no evidence this had a significant impact on the resident at that stage. The landlord’s following actions were timely and complied with both its policy and the Code.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. The resident brought a complaint to us about the landlord’s handling of window repairs (case ref 202401193). That complaint has not yet been investigated. As part of that case, the landlord agreed to start window repairs in October 2024. The resident then raised this complaint about the landlord’s responses to her concerns that it entered the property and her request for new windows. These issues arose after the landlord issued its earlier final response. Our scheme does not allow findings on the same events more than once. This investigation therefore considers the landlord’s responses between October 2024 and January 2025.
9. Between 18 and 26 November 2024 the resident made a complaint. She said the landlord had entered the property to repair a windowpane while she was in hospital. She said she later found damage to the window locks, which made her feel unsafe.
10. On 10 December 2024 the landlord issued its response. It acknowledged that the situation would cause distress and said it understood why the resident was upset. Its tone was empathetic, which was appropriate in the circumstance. This showed the landlord had taken the resident’s concerns seriously.
11. As part of the landlord’s investigation, it reviewed its repair records and spoke with the staff involved in arranging the window repairs. It confirmed that it cancelled the appointment for 25 October 2024 after speaking with the resident that day. This was reasonable and consistent with our findings.
12. The landlord also confirmed it had repaired the windowpane in July 2024 and provided before and after photos within its response. This showed that it had considered the resident’s concern that the windowpane was cracked before her hospital admission. This was also consistent with our findings.
13. The landlord also confirmed the resident reported a broken window lock on 25 November 2024 and was repaired on 26 November 2024. This met the 24-hour emergency repair timeframe set out in its Repairs Policy.
14. The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to give at least 24 hours’ notice before entering a property, except in an emergency. The landlord acknowledged this in its response, showing it understood its obligations.
15. The landlord confirmed it would contact the resident to rearrange the outstanding window repairs. This showed it accepted that repairs were still needed and that access had to be agreed. By making this commitment, it showed regard for its duty to keep the property in repair under the tenancy agreement.
16. The resident escalated her complaint between 13 and 16 December 2024. She disagreed that the landlord had not entered the property and repeated her concerns about the smells from the repair materials. She asked the landlord to repair the windows using materials that would not affect her health. She also requested a face-to-face visit, new windows, and improved communication.
17. During this time, the landlord visited the resident to discuss her concerns. It explained that it did not have keys to the property and could not have entered while she was in hospital. It also said the contractor confirmed it did not attend on 25 October 2024. These steps were reasonable to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns.
18. The landlord spoke to the resident on 19 and 20 December 2024 to progress the outstanding repairs. She told the landlord she was in hospital. Following up on it stage 1 commitment was reasonable and showed it remained aware of the outstanding repairs.
19. As part of its investigation, the landlord also contacted the block’s managing agent about window replacement. The managing agent confirmed there were no immediate plans but that external repairs and painting had recently been completed.
20. The landlord did not own or manage the block and was not responsible for window replacement. Contacting the managing agent was a reasonable response to the resident’s request. While the landlord was not responsible for window replacement, it was responsible for communicating with the managing agent, which it did so in a reasonable timeframe.
21. Between 3 and 6 January 2025 the resident asked for a different contractor and surveyor to oversee the window repairs. The landlord agreed to change the surveyor but said it could not change the contractor, who had already gotten the materials.
22. During this time, the landlord asked the resident to confirm it could book the window repairs that were previously agreed. It told her that completing the repairs would help warm the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to keep trying to arrange the repairs, as it knew how her health condition affected her. The resident said she was unable to commit to the repairs due to personal circumstances. She also told it she did not want the Surveyor or contractor to contact her again about the window repairs.
23. On 8 January 2025 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It reassured her that it had not entered the property and shared the managing agent’s feedback on window replacement. It explained that it did not own the block and was not responsible for window replacement. It acknowledged that this may have disappointed her but repeated that it was willing to carry out the proposed repairs. It said that even if it owned the windows, they were not beyond reasonable repair.
24. It was fair for the landlord to set out its responsibilities and approach to the windows. Being honest and transparent helps landlords manage residents’ expectations, even if it may not be the result they had hoped for. It also helps residents understand landlords’ decision making.
25. The landlord’s response also confirmed it would arrange another staff member to oversee the repairs but could not change the contractor. It explained doing so would not be a good use of public funds. This showed the landlord considered its duty under its Repairs Policy to provide a value for money service. It was fair and reasonable for the landlord to keep the same contractor because it balanced the resident’s concerns with its responsibility to use funds properly.
26. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s health conditions. As an alternative to new windows, it gave the resident information about infrared wallpaper. It explained how it worked and asked the resident to contact it if she was interested.
27. This was reasonable and showed the landlord had explored what else it could to do help the resident. It was not responsible under the tenancy agreement for wallpapering the property and its offer went beyond its tenancy agreement obligations.
28. The landlord did not fully address the resident’s concerns about the repair materials and their impact on her health. It could have acknowledged this more clearly. However, as it said that it had not visited in the resident’s absence, it was limited in what further information it could provide. This was a shortcoming in its communication.
29. When considering a case, we look at both the resident’s experience and the landlord’s responses, and whether it considered its responsibilities under any relevant policies, procedures, or legislation. We look at the evidence available to us from both parties and consider what was fair, reasonable, and proportionate in the circumstances.
30. We recognise the resident’s distress and understand why concerns about property access and health impacts were upsetting. Upon reviewing this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord entered the property in the resident’s absence.
31. The landlord considered the resident’s health circumstances and explored options beyond its repair obligations. It took reasonable steps to assess whether the windows required replacement and concluded they did not. It continued to engage with the resident after issuing its final response. Considering this, the landlord’s responses were fair, reasonable, and proportionate.

32. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition. Our findings are:
33. The landlord has a published Complaints Policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
34. On 18 November 2024 the resident made a complaint by emailing individual staff members. She resent her complaint to the landlord’s Complaints Team on 27 November 2024, which the landlord logged.
35. It is unclear whether the landlord received the resident’s initial email. Its policy says residents can complain by contacting the Complaints Team, online, by phone, or in writing. The landlord acted reasonably by logging the complaint once the team received it.
36. The Code requires landlords to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. The landlord failed to do so. However, there is no evidence this impacted the resident, who received a response on 10 December 2024. This met the 10-working days timeframe set out in the Code and its policy. The landlord’s complaint definition also complied with the Code.
37. On 13 and 16 December 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord acknowledged her escalation on 20 December 2024. This met the timeframes set out in the Code.
38. On 8 January 2025 the landlord issued its stage 2 response, 16 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. This met the 20-working day timeframe required by its policy and the Code.

Learning

39. The landlord’s investigation of the resident’s concerns was thorough and proportionate. Awareness of the resident’s health conditions allowed it to consider what practical steps it could take to reduce her concerns.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

40. Accurate and accessible repair records supported the landlord’s investigation and strengthened its position. Maintaining clear logs of cancelled appointments, access arrangements, and contractor attendance is essential when responding to a resident’s concerns.

Communication

41. Acknowledging complaints on time is essential for compliance. Even minor delays can sometimes create uncertainty and undermine residents’ confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling.
42. The landlord responded empathetically and explained its responsibilities clearly. When a landlord is unable to investigate a resident’s concerns any further, recognising the concern helps residents feel heard.