Kingston upon Thames Council (202230294)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230294

Kingston upon Thames Council

12 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s report of repairs to the kitchen and bathroom.
2. The resident’s report of the contractor’s conduct.
3. Reports of the resident’s behaviour.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. He lives in a ground-floor flat with his two disabled children.
In August 2019, the resident reported a leak from his neighbour’s water tank which he said had caused damage to his kitchen and bathroom.
The landlord visited in November 2021 and reported that the flooring in the bathroom was “torn and had lifted in various places.” It noted that several kitchen cupboards and the worktop were in a poor state. Following the visit, the landlord sent an internal email requesting that the resident was added to the list for a new kitchen and a replacement bathroom floor.
A second visit was completed in April 2022 with the landlord and its contractors. The landlord’s internal records noted that the resident had installed his own shower cubicle which had damaged the bathroom flooring. It discussed replacing the flooring with the resident but advised that he would need to remove the shower cubicle which he had installed without permission. It confirmed that it would replace the kitchen flooring and discussed replacing the worktop and four cupboard doors. The resident was advised that as his kitchen had been discontinued, replacement parts would not match. At this point, the landlord recorded that the resident became abusive, and the officers left the property.
The resident submitted a complaint on 17 May 2022 after failing to receive an update on his repairs following the visit in April 2022. He explained that:
1. He was unhappy that his kitchen would look like a “rainbow” due to it being mismatched.
2. He was concerned that he may be recharged for repairs, which he stated he could not afford due to being on a low income.
3. The contractors had been dismissive to the point that he had asked them to leave. Since the visit, he stated seeing the same people out in the street who had shouted abuse at him.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 June 2022 to confirm that the housing officer that visited in April 2022 would be able to confirm what if any of the repairs would be recharged to him. It offered reassurance that inspections were completed without “bias” and repairs raised accordingly. It apologised for how the resident had been made to feel during the visit but advised that the housing officer had not reported an incident.
The resident sent chaser emails in July and September 2022 to request an update on the repairs and his complaint.
In a telephone call to the resident on 13 September 2022, the landlord raised the report of unacceptable behaviour during the April 2022 visit to the resident, which he denied. During this call, the resident advised the landlord that he would not allow access for repairs to be completed.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 27 September 2022 which reiterated the points made in the email sent on 8 June 2022. It added thatas the resident had not been provided with updates following the April 2022 visit, it partially upheld the complaint. However, it was unable to resolve the complaint without the cooperation of the resident in allowing access.
In a response on 6 October 2022, the resident again refuted that he had acted inappropriately, stating that he had asked if the contractors would accept a kitchen with different coloured units which they did not respond to. He said the contractors used “racism body language” and then left his property. He said that if the allegations were true, why was it not reported to the police as it was a serious matter. He raised concerns with having to pay for some of the repairs.
A stage two response was issued on 3 November 2022. The landlord apologised that the resident was unhappy with the contractors but advised that they were instructed not to give personal opinions. It acknowledged that the resident had made a further report of contractors shouting abuse from their car, but it did not have evidence to proceed with an investigation. It had not meant to cause upset by notifying the resident of the reports concerning his behaviour. As the previous inspection had been carried out some time ago without a decision being made on whether to recharge or not, it was imperative for another inspection to be completed.
The resident responded on 16 November 2022 and said he had agreed with everything the landlord has said, apart from having to pay for some of the repairs. He confirmed the kitchen was eight years old and he had a disabled family living in the property and it was unreasonable to expect the “item to stay as new.”

Events after the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process

The resident referred his complaint to the Service in early 2023 as he was unhappy that he may be recharged for some of the repairs. To resolve his complaint, he wanted recharges to be waived as he stated that he could not afford them.
The landlord confirmed in August 2023 that a written agreement needed to be made and agreed to by the resident in connection with his behaviour and attitude towards operatives before the contractors would reattend.
In January 2024 the scope of works was agreed. The Service understands that the resident has since delayed the repairs until May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the kitchen and bathroom

In accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s recharge policy, it will recharge for items and/or repairs that are broken or damaged that cannot be attributed to fair wear and tear.
The landlord carried out two visits in 2021. The evidence confirms that the landlord authorised a new kitchen as well as a bathroom floor in November 2021. Therefore, it is understandable that the resident was upset and confused following the second visit in April 2022 when he was informed that he may be recharged for some of the repairs.
It is evident that the landlord failed to communicate this clearly with the resident, which caused upset and confusion as well as contributing to delays in completing the repairs. Had the landlord clearly explained what it considered as fair wear and tear and itemised what the recharges were for (e.g. damage caused to the bathroom flooring after the resident installed a shower cubicle without obtaining permission), it could have minimised the delays and distress that were caused to the resident. He explained throughout his correspondence that he was on a low income and had two disabled children in the property so would not be able to afford recharges. The landlord should have considered the distress this was causing and attempted to clarify the matter at the earliest opportunity. That it did not is a failing.
The evidence shows that not all the delays can be attributed solely to the landlord. Its contractor had refused to return to the address following the visit in April 2022 in which it had reported the resident for unreasonable behaviour.
The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord was proactive in trying to resolve the matter between sending a stage one response in June 2022 and September 2022. The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord for updates during this time.
Between September 2022 and November 2022, the landlord was unable to progress matters as the resident had refused to allow access to complete the repairs. However, the resident notified the landlord in correspondence on 16 November 2022 that he would allow access, but the evidence does not show that the landlord communicated effectively with its contractors to initiate the works. As such, the resident pursued the matter again in January 2023.
While the landlord has taken steps in recent months to remedy this matter, the landlord has not provided sufficient explanation for the continued delay to the repairs in 2023. The Service understands that some of the delays were attributed to the landlord drawing up an Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC) which was an appropriate step to take in managing the behaviours of all parties involved. However, despite its assertions that an inspection would be carried out in its stage two response in November 2022, the works were not scoped until January 2024, 14 months after the stage two response.
The continued delayed indicates failings in the landlord’s oversight and management of the repairs. The landlord did not acknowledge why the failings happened or explain how its procedure would be improved. The landlord did not therefore demonstrate that it had sufficiently learnt from the outcome of this complaint or reassure the resident that similar failings would not happen again. This amounts to maladministration.

Conduct of contractors

The landlord appropriately apologised to the resident that he had perceived its contractor’s behaviour as discriminatory and racist.
It provided the resident with assurance that inspections were completed without bias and that its operatives had been advised not to give personal opinions. The evidence confirms that the landlord obtained a witness account from the housing officer who was present during the reported incident but had not corroborated the resident’s account. While this may have caused upset for the resident, the landlord’s handling and response to the matter was fair and reasonable.
Following the resident’s reports that the same operatives had sworn at him from their vehicle sometime after the April 2022 visit, the landlord confirmed that as the resident had been unable to identify the vehicle or provide a registration, it did not have enough evidence to progress an investigation. This was an appropriate response.
The evidence available indicatesthat the landlord reached a fair and reasonable conclusion on the information it had.

The resident’s behaviour

When a report by a member of staff or contractor is made, the landlord has a responsibility to ensure that it acknowledges the report.
Despite the report concerning the resident’s behaviour being made in April 2022, it is unclear why the landlord did not implement its policy on ‘managing unreasonable behaviour’ to address the allegation with the resident at the earliest opportunity. This led the resident to question why the landlord had not addressed the matter with him at the time, doing so five months after the report was made.
While the Service understands that the resident was upset by the allegations, the landlord had a responsibility to remind the resident of its expectations and/or seek to modify the resident’s behaviour in order that all parties understood what was expected to reach a resolution.
However, the landlord’s handling of the matter exacerbated the situation which led to further delays and amounts to service failure.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s published information confirms that following a cyber-security incident in June 2022 it implemented an interim complaints policy which was in place at the time of the complaint.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that under initial contact resolution (ICR) it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. If it can deal with the matter straight away, it will let the resident know. Otherwise, it will give the resident a detailed reply within 15 working days.
While this is not in line with the Housing Ombudsman Complaints Code (Code), the landlord’s published information confirms that as of 1 April 2024, a new complaints policy will be implemented, which will be in line with the Code. Therefore, an order has not been made on this.
Landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay. However, in this case, the landlord’s ICR spanned a total of 89 working days before a stage one response was sent, compounding some of its failings in its handling of the substantive issue.
It was unreasonable that the resident had to pursue the landlord in July and September 2022 to progress his complaint and receive a stage one response. This caused a protracted complaints process which the landlord failed to use as an effective tool in resolving the complaint.
The Service would reasonably expect a landlord to acknowledge the delays and consider the inconvenience, time and effort expended by the resident in his pursuit of the complaint. That it did not was unreasonable and therefore missed the opportunity to “put things right.” It also demonstrates to the resident that the landlord has not heard or considered to what extended he has been affected by its services failures. Therefore, the Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of repairs to the kitchen and bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of the contractor’s conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the reports of the resident’s behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for its failings in identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £350, made up of:
  1. £250 for the time and trouble caused because of the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
  2. £100 for the distress, time and trouble caused because of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Review its policy and procedures on managing unreasonable behaviour and carry out staff training to ensure that unacceptable behaviour is dealt with in accordance with its policy and ensure that warnings or responses are issued appropriately.
2. The landlord should provide the Service with an update of its reviews, also within six weeks.