The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today. 

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202107921)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107921

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

3 December 2021


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 handling of the resident’s complaint about its removal of items from her shed.

Background and summary of events

  1. On 4 May 2021 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said that the landlord asked residents to report which sheds belonged to them, which she did; however, on 24 April 2021 she found that the landlord had changed her shed lock. The resident said that the landlord initially gave her the wrong key and, when she was given the correct key on 4 May 2021, she found that items were missing from her shed. The resident provided a crime reference number and a list of missing items totalling £1800. She asked the landlord to compensate her for all missing items and the distress caused.
  2. According to landlord’s chronology of events, it investigated the issue and interviewed and dismissed a staff member involved in the disposal of the belongings in the resident’s shed.
  3. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, dated 19 May 2021, it:
    1. Advised that the resident’s confirmation of her shed number was linked to a different block of flats, and this led to its operative changing her shed lock and disposing of the belongings in it, in error. The block caretaker initially had the wrong keys and corrected the error by providing the resident with the correct keys.
    2. Confirmed it was liaising with the resident to obtain receipts of the list of items taken. It would seek to complete the itinerary detail with the resident in the next ten days and aimed to replace the items on a like-for-like basis. It offered to also pay the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused and confirmed that the operative who cleared the shed had been dismissed from their position.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 May 2021 to advise that she had not been contacted regarding replacing her personal items.
  5. On 4 June 2021 the landlord attempted to call the resident and left a voicemail.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord again on 21 June and 1 July 2021 to advise she had not been contacted or compensated for the loss of her possessions.
  7. On 2 July 2021 the landlord internally confirmed that the resident had provided receipts for items she lost to the amount of £1,800. The landlord advised the resident on the same day that it had been attempting to call her and apologised for the delay in it processing the compensation payment. It confirmed that the resident should receive the payment of £1800 plus £100 for distress and inconvenience by 9 July 2021.
  8. In reply, on 2 July 2021, the resident asked to escalate her complaint and expressed her dissatisfaction that the landlord did not contact her about her compensation or compensate her within ten working days. She also asked for compensation of £5655 for loss of earnings because tools she used for work were disposed of.
  9. The resident pursued an acknowledgement of her complaint on 7 July 2021, which the landlord subsequently sent on the same day.
  10. According to the landlord’s records, on 14 July 2021 the resident called and explained that she did not use the tools previously mentioned for work, but her brother did. The landlord queried the resident sending in accounts or job receipts to indicate loss of business, but the resident was unable to do this.
  11. The landlord’s final complaint response is dated 21 June 2021; however, it appears to have been sent in July 2021 because it refers to the resident’s escalation of 2 July 2021. In it, the landlord apologised for the impact that the unauthorised removal of belongings from the resident’s shed had upon her. It confirmed it had paid her for the loss of goods, time and trouble and, while this took longer than the ten days originally stated within the stage one response, this was due to the need to obtain receipts and confirm the items removed from the shed. The landlord confirmed that, once the resident provided this information on 24 June 2021, it paid her £1,900 on 4 July 2021, within ten days of the necessary evidence being provided.
  12. The landlord confirmed that the resident was unable to evidence the loss of earnings she claimed for. It noted that the resident previously accepted £1,900 as full and final settlement of her complaint; however, regardless, a claim for loss of earnings would need to be pursued via its insurance department rather than via its complaints process. If the resident wished to make an insurance claim and could provide evidence to demonstrate loss of earnings, its insurance department would be prepared to review the matter further.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s compensation policy

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy says that all liability claims against the landlord should be made to its insurance team and will be dealt with outside this policy. The compensation policy includes a calculation chart to assist landlords in determining compensation amounts. This includes the amount of £100 – 250 for cases where the landlord was responsible for the service failure and there was medium level of impact on the resident.

Assessment

  1. It is not disputed that there was a service failure in the unauthorised disposal of the resident’s belongings from her shed, and therefore it is left for this Service to determine whether the landlord has provided appropriate redress in view od this error.
  2. When a landlord is at fault, it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what the landlord will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord has appropriately apologised, acknowledged its failings in his case, and explained how the service failure occurred. The landlord has also taken the practical measures of compensating the resident for the items she lost within ten days of being provided receipts and removed a staff member involved in the service failure from their post. It is outside the remit of The Housing Ombudsman to tell a landlord that it should take disciplinary action against a member of staff or terminate their employment. This is because we cannot consider matters of employment, under the rules which govern our service. Nonetheless, the landlord has appropriately conducted its own investigation and taken the practical action that it deemed necessary.
  3. So far as possible, the landlord should seek to put the resident back to the position they would have been in if there had been no fault. Sometimes, however, it is not possible to do so and, in these cases, financial compensation may be appropriate. In this case, the landlord has, in addition to the measures above, compensated the resident £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by the disposal of items from her shed.
  4. The resident has asked for additional compensation of £5655 for loss of earnings because some tools which she/her brother use for work were disposed of from the shed. It is common practice and not unreasonable for a landlord to request some sort of proof of loss of earnings before considering a claim. In this case, the landlord requested evidence this from the resident, but she was unable to provide it. Given the specific circumstances of the case, in particular the amount of money that the resident requested, and the lack of evidence provided, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that it could not compensate her this money under its complaints process. It has also provided her with the appropriate details of its insurer, and advice that its insurer could consider the resident’s claim should she wish to pursue the matter. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that she could make a claim via its insurer, in line with its compensation policy which says liability claims should be referred to the landlord’s insurer. It is common practice for landlords to have insurance to cover liability claims as a way of managing their costs. The landlord would not be expected to pay the resident’s claim for loss of earnings outside the insurance process.
  5. The reimbursement of the items disposed of, and £100 compensation provide adequate redress for the service failures identified and is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance as well as the landlord’s own compensation policy. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests similar awards where there has been service failure which had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. In this case, the disposal of the resident’s items did not affect the outcome of the complaint as the landlord ultimately put this right by reimbursing the resident for her possessions, but this error did have an impact on the resident as it caused a delay to the compensation payment and compensation is due in view of this.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord has taken reasonable steps to put right its service failure in disposing the resident’s items from her shed, in line with this Service’s remedies guidance and its compensation policy by: investigating the matter, apologising and acknowledging its mistake, compensating the resident for the disposed items and distress and inconvenience, and providing the resident the relevant advice about her claim for loss of earnings.