Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202106991)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106991

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

5 December 2021

Amended 12 May 2022

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 concerns how the landlord handled repairs to the heating and hot water system of the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a fourth floor studio flat. The tenancy commenced on 16 December 2019.
3. The resident and her cousin have both corresponded with the landlord and this Service during the complaint. For reasons of clarity, the complainants have been collectively referred to as “the resident” throughout the report.

Relevant agreements, policies and procedures

4. Under the tenancy terms and conditions, and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to maintain installations for space heating and heating water.
5. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises its repairs, its response time to each type of repair, and gives examples of when each type of repair should be considered as follows:
   1. Critical (respond within four hours). Where there is a serious safety hazard, the immediate risk of more extensive damage to a property or the potential to cause injury.
   2. Emergency (respond within 24 hours). Burst pipes, no power to property, broken window requiring boarding up, insecure front door, loss of drinking water.
   3. Urgent (respond within five working days). Minor leak that can be contained, faulty extractor fan in kitchen or bathroom (if no window in room), faulty shower.
   4. Routine (respond within 20 working days). Renewing tiles, sealant to bathtubs and sinks, repairs to plaster, toilet not flushing (when there is another working toilet in the property).
   5. Planned (respond within 90 working days). Replacement of kitchen units, bath tubs, sinks and wash hand basins. Roof repairs requiring scaffolding.
6. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
7. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will compensate for a loss of heating or hot water which lasts for three consecutive weeks or longer. For a property of the size of the resident’s, the policy suggests a payment of £2.40 per day.
8. The compensation policy further states that when calculating a compensation payment for service failure where the fault is the full responsibility of the landlord, it will make a payment of up to £25 when the service failure is assessed as having no material impact, up to £50 for low impact, up to £250 for medium impact, and up to £1,000 for high impact. The policy does not define or give examples for the different levels of impact.

Summary of events

9. On 2 March 2020 the resident wrote a letter to the landlord to express her dissatisfaction with how repairs to the hot water and heating system had been handled by the landlord. The letter noted that:
   1. She had moved into the property on 9 December 2019 and was without heating or hot water. An operative attended and informed her that the boiler was too old to repair.
   2. Parts were ordered and a repair was undertaken on 17 December 2019, however this was not successful. Further parts were ordered and another repair was undertaken on 14 January 2020, which again was not successful. An operative returned on 24 January 2020 and a decision was made to replace the boiler. An inspection was undertaken on 30 January 2020 and the new boiler was fitted on 5 and 6 February 2020.
   3. An electrician who visited to connect the boiler discovered a leak from water pipe. This was resolved on 10 February 2020.
   4. She was without hot water and heating for the first nine weeks of her tenancy, that this had an adverse effect on her health and also put a financial strain on her. The resident requested that the landlord consider paying compensation for stress and inconvenience that the matter had caused.
10. On 20 October 2020 the resident wrote to landlord and requested an update on her compensation request. She provided a copy of the letter she had sent on 2 March 2020 and also noted that the matter had been discussed during a visit to the property on 13 January 2020.
11. In November 2020 a further issue occurred with the boiler when a leak developed which impacted the property below. The landlord’s repair logs show that the boiler was turned off on 21 November 2020, an appointment to turn it back on the was cancelled on 27 November 2020, and a work order to undertake repairs was raised on 1 December 2020 which was completed on 9 December 2020.
12. On 15 December 2020 the resident requested to raise a formal complaint. She noted that she was without hot water for three weeks during the most recent issue and also provided a copy of her previous correspondence which described the first incident that had left her without hot water and heating for nine weeks. She also noted that her neighbour in the property below had been relocated to a hotel while the latest leak was repaired, but that this option was not offered to her.
13. The landlord opened a formal complaint into the matter on 18 January 2021. However, it is not clear from the evidence provided that the resident was informed that a complaint had been opened. A stage one complaint response was then sent to the resident on 6 February 2021.
14. The landlord started the response by recognising that the letter sent by the resident on 2 March 2020 and the emails sent on 20 October 2020 and 15 December 2020 should have been passed on to the appropriate team and responded to sooner. The landlord apologised for the delay and the inconvenience this had caused.
15. The landlord then apologised for the length of time that the resident was without hot water and heating for both of the incidents and accepted that she did not have sufficient heating when she moved into the property in December 2019 and that its plumber should have informed it that the water had been isolated on 21 November 2020 in order for it to be restored sooner.
16. The landlord accepted that its service failures had caused considerable inconvenience to the resident and her family. It upheld her complaint, apologised and offered £250 compensation. The landlord also informed the resident that her neighbour was not moved to a hotel but that was an option available to it and it should have been considered for the resident. It apologised for this oversight.
17. The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 March 2021 and requested an escalation of the complaint on the grounds that:
    1. The issue with the boiler should have been identified prior to her moving in.
    2. The length of time both incidents took to be resolved was not acceptable.
    3. The compensation award from the landlord was inadequate and had not taken into account that adverse effect on her health the situation had caused.
18. The landlord called the resident on 11 and 18 March 2021 to discuss the outstanding issues and confirmed that it had escalated the complaint. The stage two complaint response was then sent to the resident on 23 March 2021. The landlord informed her that:
    1. It accepted that the property had insufficient heating and hot water when the resident moved in. It also accepted that the time taken to attempt to repair the boiler and then replace it was unreasonable. The landlord apologised to the resident for the stress and inconvenience that this had caused her. It also informed her that its contractor and asked it to pass on their own apology for the time taken and their poor communication while they attempted to repair the boiler.
    2. The resident was informed that following the 21 November 2021 leak into the property below, that the water would be turned back on on 23 November 2021. This did not occur until 9 December 2021, which was unacceptable.
    3. The repair that occurred on 9 December 2020 was a relatively simple job to replace a pipe underneath the bath. Therefore, there was no need for the water to be turned off for such a long period of time. The landlord apologised for the avoidable distress and frustration that the situation had caused.
    4. While it was obligated to resolve the leak into the neighbour’s property, there should have been more checks made as to the source of the leak before the resident’s water was turned off and that follow-on work should have been marked as a priority in recognition of the resident’s disabilities and that the incident occurred during winter.
    5. Its compensation offer made at stage one was calculated in line with its compensation policy. This suggests a payment of £2.40 per day for a property the size of the resident’s which was without heating and/or hot water during the winter months. Over the 12 weeks, this would total £201.60 and was rounded-up to £250 by the landlord.
    6. It had reviewed the compensation offer and acknowledged that as well as a payment that recognised the increased costs during the time that the resident was without heating and hot water, the compensation award should have also taken into account the resident’s circumstances, the stress and the inconvenience that the situation had caused. The landlord had therefore increased its compensation offer to £500.
19. The landlord concluded its response by informing the resident that she had exhausted its internal complaint process and advised her on the steps to take to bring her complaint to this Service should she remain dissatisfied.
20. In an email to this Service on 9 July 2021, the resident described the outstanding issues to the complaint as:
    1. The landlord’s calculation of the costs accrued during the period without hot water and heating did not take into account that the resident had to make numerous taxi rides to use to a laundrette.
    2. The compensation offer also did not take into account the physical illness and mental distress this matter had caused and the adverse effect it had on her existing medical conditions.

Assessment and findings

21. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it had not properly followed its repairs policy in either of the incidents that had left the resident without hot water and heating. The landlord apologised, explained what steps it had taken internally to improve its procedures and offered £500 compensation for its service failures.
22. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
23. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and explaining what it did wrong in each of the incidents. It put things right by apologising to the resident and awarding appropriate compensation. It looked to learn from its errors by making changes to how its staff responded to letters of complaint to ensure they were passed on to the appropriate team. It explained that it had spoken to the engineer who undertaken the 9 December 2020 repair to ensure that work was properly reported to prevent delays and that repairs were correctly categorised. The landlord also escalated the matter internally to senior management to identify any other lessons that could be learned.
24. The landlord further explained that due to the delays in sourcing and replacing parts on the boiler between December 2019 and February 2020, its contractor had made changes to its part ordering process to avoid a similar situation occurring.
25. The compensation payment was made in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This suggests a payment of £250 to £750 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. As examples for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests:
    1. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant
    2. Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs; to respond to antisocial behaviour; to make adequate adjustments
26. In this case, it took several months and several letters, emails and telephone calls by the resident until a formal complaint was opened. During the complaint process, the landlord accepted that it had not properly followed its policies when replacing the boiler and attending to the leak, and this had caused significant delays, stress and inconvenience to the resident. A payment of £500 was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
27. The resident requested that additional expenses she accrued, such as taxi fares and using a laundrette to wash her clothes, should have been taken into account by the landlord. However, no evidence has been provided which showed that this was raised during the complaint process. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not take this into account when calculating its compensation offer.
28. However, it would be appropriate for the landlord to write to the resident and request her to provide it with any evidence she has for additional expenses and then review its compensation offer based on what evidence it receives.
29. The resident also highlighted her dissatisfaction that the medical issues caused by not having hot water and heating for 12 weeks were not considered by the landlord when calculating its compensation offer.
30. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts as a personal injury claim.
31. This is in line with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate 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, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and how the landlord responded.
32. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

33. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it handled repairs to the heating and hot water system of the property which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Reasons

34. The landlord recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident by in the significant length of time it took to replace the boiler and repair the leak, and the distress that this had caused to her. The landlord apologised and awarded compensation proportionate to the effect of these failures on the resident.

Recommendations

35. It is recommended that the landlord write to the resident and request evidence of expenses accrued by the resident during the time period of the complaint that were not considered when the compensation was calculated. Upon receipt of the evidence, it should review its compensation offer and then write back to the resident to inform her of its decision.