Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202414645)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom tenth floor flat with family, including three children. He first reported a leak in late October 2023, and the landlord attended within the next few days. The landlord then inspected multiple times using different contractors to explore potential leak sources. It completed the repairs on 21 April 2024. The resident reported he had incurred costs staying elsewhere. He said the landlord had not directly completed the further decoration and repair works within the property.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of a leak.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Leak Repair

4. While the leak was complex, the landlord delayed unreasonably finding the source and completing a permanent repair. It acknowledged one element of its delay, however we found further examples, and it showed a lack of communication and poor record keeping. It did not consider the household’s vulnerability and concern about costs associated with their temporary move in a timely manner. The landlord did not directly complete the repairs and redecoration it promised in its final response. As such, we have found the compensation it offered during its complaints process to be insufficient.

Complaint Handling

5. We have found the landlord delayed 3 days in providing its stage 1 response. This was not in line with its complaints policy but was in line with our Complaint Handling Code (our Code) at the time. We have not found maladministration as it was in line with our Code and we can see no associated detriment to the resident. It has resolved this specific issue in its latest complaint policy.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

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.

6. The resident said he had first reported the leak by phone on 25 October 2023. The landlord said it did not keep its call records for more than 30 days but it had recorded his first report on 27 October 2023. There was no conclusive evidence provided by both parties around the actual date the resident reported the repair. As such we have considered the report of a leak on 27 October 2023 that we have evidence of. This report notes a leak from an upstairs neighbour’s radiator which made the electrics at the property unsafe.
7. The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s report. It promptly raised both electric and plumbing jobs on 27 October 2023. It inspected the electrics 2 working days later, outside of its 24 hour emergency repairs timeframe in its repairs policy. It attempted the repair twice prior but could not gain access to the property. It inspected the upstairs radiator 7 working days later, outside of its 5 working day urgent repairs timeframe in its repairs policy. While we have found delays in its response, the evidence shows the landlord’s operative did not mark the electrics unsafe, and the leak was not from the radiator in the property above.
8. The landlord appropriately explored various causes for the leak and followed each of the surveyor’s directions for further investigation. We acknowledge that leaks can be complex to diagnose and resolve. Particularly in this case where there was an unrelated leak at the same time in a neighbouring property. This made it hard to conclude the cause of the leak without further investigation. It also made visits difficult to coordinate as some surveys needed to consider multiple properties.
9. However, there is further evidence of delays prior to the landlord’s final complaint response. The landlord correctly identified in the response that it should have engaged a specialist leak detection contractor sooner in its repair process. We have also identified it delayed its thermal survey and joint inspection. Its records are unclear and suggest these were both not completed until the middle of January 2024 although it planned the works for December 2023. The delays in finding the source of the leak contributed to resolving the issue promptly.
10. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it promised to engage a leak detection specialist if it could not find the source that month. It did engage a leak detection specialist who inspected twice. It then engaged contractors to repair the external brickwork appropriately. However, there was a delay in engaging the contractors.
11. There was a further 2-week delay in it completing the final works which the landlord did not account for in the records. It aimed to complete the works on 6 and 7 April 2024. It did not do so until 20 and 21 April 2024. This was inappropriate as it did not follow up its final response or provide any updates and explanation for this delay. It completed the final lasting repair on 21 April 2024, a delay of nearly 6 months after the resident’s initial report.
12. The resident described having to attend the property several times a day to empty buckets demonstrating the time and trouble the landlord’s delay caused him. Additionally, the landlord unreasonably delayed offering dehumidifiers until 2 February 2024, after 3 months of the ongoing leak.
13. The landlord also showed instances of poor communication. For instance, we cannot see the landlord updated the resident regularly during its delayed repair apart from 2 updates in December 2023 and January 2024. There were also further examples of communication issues within the evidence. This was unreasonable. It’s important for landlords to keep a resident updated especially around complex repairs when there are delays. Proper communication allows a landlord to manage resident expectations. In this instance, poor communication contributed to the resident’s frustrations.
14. The landlord showed instances of poor record keeping. For example, there is no detailed record of an internal inspection in November 2023. Nor any evidence of the joint inspection and thermal survey on 30 January 2024 it mentioned at stage 2. It’s important that a landlord keeps accurate records because it allows it to demonstrate the actions it took if called into question. It also allows it to keep on top of ongoing issues and respond in appropriate timeframes.

15. The landlord acknowledged some of the delays and offered compensation. It included no explanation of how it calculated its final compensation offer and this was inappropriate. The landlord offered the resident £475 in compensation. We have treated this amount as redress for the delay it acknowledged in rectifying this leak. However, we have not seen the landlord considered additional costs related to dehumidifiers. Furthermore, this offer was not sufficient to put things right given the landlord did not follow up on its promise for remedial works and decoration.
16. The landlord’s compensation policy explains it will give the resident £7.70 per room per day for the use of the dehumidifiers in the property. This is to contribute towards extra electricity costs. We cannot see the landlord included this in its compensation calculation. Hence the above order of additional £315.70 to cover the 41 days they were used to dry a bedroom the property.
17. The landlord also told us it had not noted any vulnerability in the address. The resident has three children one of whom was a baby at the time and therefore were vulnerable due to their young age. It should have documented its consideration of the household’s vulnerability and any steps it took to mitigate the impact of this leak on them.
18. The resident escalated this complaint partly because he was unhappy the landlord had not responded to his complaint about the costs associated with him moving his family temporarily during the repairs. The resident chose to move in with a friend shortly after the leak started due to the disruption. The first mention of the associated costs of his temporary move in the evidence was on 4 December 2023. The landlord’s policy is clear temporary moves only apply to leaseholders when there is a significant safety hazard causing an immediate risk or the property in uninhabitable.
19. We cannot say what the outcome of the landlord’s consideration would or should have been. However, it should have considered the cost of the temporary move and documented its decision, especially when the resident raised it in December 2023. However, it was not until a month later and in its stage 2 response when the landlord responded.
20. The resident told us he wanted the landlord to cover all his expenses relating to living elsewhere during this time. We have not ordered the landlord to pay all these expenses as we cannot see any evidence the property was uninhabitable in any surveys. There is also no evidence the property had a severe hazard in any of the surveys over this period.
21. We therefore cannot say the landlord should definitely have provided temporary accommodation to his household. However, it should have responded promptly to his communication and assessed any vulnerabilities and risks involved. We will order the landlord to pay additional compensation for not considering a temporary move or the household’s vulnerability, as the lack of consideration and response clearly caused the resident distress during an already distressing time.
22. In its stage 2 response the landlord suggested the resident would need to either make a claim to its insurance department or make a claim with his contents insurance for both damage and cost of temporary move. These were reasonable options for the landlord to suggest. The landlord also agreed to pay any associated excess.
23. We have seen evidence the landlord’s insurance department rejected the claim. It is not our role to decide whether a claim should have been successful, but we can assess whether the landlord acted reasonably.
24. The resident also had the choice whether to approach his home contents insurance and provide proof of the excess payment to the landlord, which he advised us he did not do. We cannot say whether this further claim would have been successful, but it was a reasonable option for the landlord to suggest.
25. In its stage 2 response the landlord also promised to repair any related damage and redecorate once it repaired the leak. The landlord has not provided any evidence it did these works. The resident told us the landlord had not done them and instead the repairs were completed by the building insurance paid for by his service charge, for which he also paid a £100 excess.
26. This was unreasonable, the landlord should have arranged and funded the works it had promised to do. The landlord has not explained why it did not do so . The further repairs and redecoration were completed in September 2024, 5 months after the landlord repaired the leak which is an unreasonable delay. This caused the resident further time, trouble and distress in arranging these and waiting for them to be completed.

27. At stage 1, the landlord responded 13 working days after the resident’s complaint showing a minor delay of 3 days outside of its complaints policy timescale. The landlord did not follow its policy as we have not seen it agreed an extension. However, our Code at the time gave 5 working days for acknowledgement and 10 for a further response.
28. The landlord’s stage 1 response was in the total timeframe for stage 1 set out in our Code so we have not found maladministration. The landlord’s latest complaints policy has changed this to be in line with our Code. At stage 2, the landlord responded 19 working days after the resident’s escalation request in line with the timeframes in its policy and the Code.

Learning

29. The landlord should make sure to agree an extension with the resident within its policy timeframes if its response is delayed.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. We saw many instances of incomplete or unclear records. The landlord should make sure to keep complete records of its complex repairs and investigations. This will help it evidence its actions in potential complaints and follow up on its commitments.

Communication

31. The landlord should consider how it can improve its communication with residents and to be proactive during complex repairs as we did not see evidence of regular updates during the events of the complaint.