Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202110067)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110067

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

27 January 2023

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 response to the resident’s concerns regarding the standard of caretaking.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a missed repair appointment and concerns raised about lighting repair works.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the conduct of a call handler.

Background and summary of events

The resident has a secure tenancy, which began on 2 June 1997. The property is a one bedroom flat on the ninth floor.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the standard of caretaking

The resident emailed the landlord on 19 June 2021 to make a formal complaint about the standard of caretaking. He attached photographs of:
1. A piece of hardboard, which the resident said had been on the ground near the bike shed for at least two months;
2. A garage door, which the resident said had been on the ground, behind the block for over a week;
3. An unauthorised poster that the resident said had been up for about a month.
The resident sent further emails to the landlord on 28 June, 1 July and 5 July 2021 to say that the poster had not been removed. The landlord sent an acknowledgement on 7 July 2021, and on 9 July 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it had removed the poster.
The landlord responded to the stage one complaint on 12 July 2021, in which it stated:
1. The garage door had been removed from sight on 21 June 2021;
2. The caretaker was on site every Monday and Friday to conduct his inspections and the landlord’s records confirmed this;
3. Cover was provided if the caretaker was absent;
4. The caretaker had reported many issues in relation to the site in question;
5. The poster had been removed on 9 July 2021 and it was an oversight that it had not been removed prior to this;
6. The complaint was “partially upheld” on the basis that the landlord had not “always communicated effectively about activities being undertaken”.
On 12 July and 15 July 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to ask why the poster had been up for two months. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s enquiry and logged this as a follow-up to the stage one complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 July 2021 and explained that the poster had been up for over two months because of an oversight and it apologised for this. In response, the resident wrote to the landlord on 27 July 2021 and requested that his complaint be escalated to stage two of the complaint process, as he did not accept the landlord’s explanation that the poster had been up for two months due to an oversight.
On 9 August 2021, the landlord sent its stage two complaint response to the resident, in which it stated:
1. The caretaker had visited on five occasions over a three-month period (the dates of the visits were listed in the letter);
2. As a result of the visits, the caretaker had reported 16 issues, which were listed in the letter;
3. Based on the landlord’s records, it was satisfied that the caretaker had been “actively inspecting your building, and identifying and reporting faults…”;
4. The caretaker’s supervisor would also carry out inspections and discuss any concerns with the caretaker;
5. The landlord found that the caretaker had reported fewer issues compared to the average number reported by other caretakers, and said that whilst this did not necessarily indicate any failings on the part of the caretaker, the relevant managers would be discussing this with the caretaker;
6. The landlord acknowledged that the delay in removing the poster was “deserving of wider investigation”;
7. The complaint was upheld and the landlord apologised to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a missed repair appointment and concerns raised about lighting repair works

On 17 May 2021, the resident reported defective lighting in the hallway of his property. The landlord raised a works order and booked an appointment for an electrician to attend on 2 June 2021 in the afternoon.
The resident emailed on 2 June 2021 to inform the landlord that the electrician had not attended the appointment and had not phoned or texted the resident to advise him that the appointment would not be kept. The resident asked the landlord to send him a compensation claim form for the missed appointment.
The electrician attended on 3 June 2021 and completed the repairs by replacing the light fittings and the bulbs.
There was an exchange of emails on 4 June 2021 between the landlord and the resident, in which the resident confirmed that he wanted both the missed appointment and the conduct of a call handler dealt with as a formal complaint. The landlord sent a stage one acknowledgement email on 8 June 2021.
Between 10 June and 14 June 2021, the resident sent further emails to the landlord requesting the compensation form for the missed appointment, and during this period the landlord responded to say that the stage one complaint investigation would consider the question of compensation.
On 17 June 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage one complaint response about the missed appointment, in which it stated:
1. The appointment had been booked for 2 June 2021 and the resident had been sent text reminders of the appointment on the day before and on the appointment date;
2. The electrician could not attend the appointment because some of the parts for the job had not arrived on time;
3. The landlord had asked its repairs staff to plan the ordering of parts so that they arrive much sooner and to notify residents in advance if an appointment cannot be kept;
4. The landlord confirmed that it was appropriate to offer the resident £20 for this missed appointment and therefore added a hyperlink for the compensation form;
5. The landlord commented on the conduct of the call handler (this is covered in more detail later in this report);
6. The landlord upheld the complaint and apologised for the service the resident had received.
On 17 June 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to question why he was being offered £20 when another resident had received £50 for a missed appointment. On the same day, the resident wrote again to the landlord to ask for his complaint to be escalated to stage two of the process. The resident stated that:
1. He had been advised by the electrician that he could not attend on the appointed day because he had to attend to an emergency visit;
2. The contractor should have given the resident a courtesy call to say that the appointment could not be kept;
3. The resident was unhappy with the conduct of the landlord’s call handler when he reported the missed appointment;
4. He reiterated that he knew of a resident who had received £50 for a missed appointment and therefore he did not wish to accept the offer of £20;
5. The electrician did not have any dust sheets when he attended, and therefore the resident had to provide towels to cover his belongings. Also, the resident had to sweep and clean up afterwards;
6. The bulbs that were fitted by the electrician were “very dark” and therefore the electrician said he would return with brighter bulbs, but he did not return. The resident phoned and texted him, but did not receive a response.
The landlord acknowledged the stage two complaint on 21 June 2021 and sent its reply on 14 July 2021, in which it advised the resident of the following:
1. The landlord accepted there had been “clear service failures” in its handling of the matter;
2. The electrician and supervisor could not recall conversations in which they had reportedly said that the appointment had been missed because of an emergency visit;
3. The landlord accepted that it should have provided advance notification that the appointment could not be kept;
4. The landlord had put steps in place as a result of the resident’s complaint about the call handler’s conduct (further details can be found later in this report);
5. The landlord said it would remind operatives and contractors about cleaning up after completing repairs;
6. The landlord confirmed that it would arrange another job to replace the bulbs with brighter ones, and it acknowledged that it was not good customer service “for staff to promise to provide assistance and then not do so…”
7. The landlord confirmed that £20 was the standard compensation for a missed appointment and that the neighbour who had received £50 had experienced a higher level of service failure;
8. The landlord upheld the complaint, apologised to the resident and re-offered the £20 compensation.
On 19 January 2023, the resident advised this Service that the landlord had not yet replaced the bulbs in his hallway for brighter ones.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the conduct of a call handler

The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 June 2021 about the missed appointment and in the email he reported to the landlord that the call operator had been “rude [and] abrupt” and had put him on hold. The resident confirmed on 4 June 2021 that he wanted the conduct of the call handler to be investigated as part of his stage one complaint.
The landlord stated in its stage one complaint response that it had tracked the telephone conversation and, as a result, the landlord accepted that the service received by the resident from the call handler “fell below the standard we consider acceptable”. The landlord therefore apologised and confirmed that “appropriate action” was being taken to ensure it did not happen again. The landlord also said that the situation would be used as a tool to aid future training of frontline staff.
On 17 June 2021, the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage two. One of the reasons quoted by the resident was the treatment he had received from the call handler when he phoned to report the missed appointment.
The landlord replied to this point in its stage two response letter dated 14 July 2021, and confirmed that it would reiterate to all of its call centre staff the council’s expectations in terms of appropriate call handling. The landlord also said that the relevant team would be the subject of random call sampling “in an effort to identify any negative trends and/or behaviour” and to “drive up standards”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the standard of caretaking

The landlord’s website (under Estate Care) states: “Your Caretaker monitors estates regularly to inspect communal areas and report faults and defects, service levels and hazards requiring attention”.
The landlord confirmed in its stage one complaint response that the caretaker is on site “every Monday and Friday morning to conduct inspections… If for any reason there is an absence, the inspections due will be covered during the week to ensure consistency is maintained”.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 June 2021 to make a complaint about the standard of caretaking in relation to his block/estate and he attached photographs of three discarded items that should have been removed (a piece of hardboard, a garage door and a poster). The landlord sent its stage one complaint response on 12 July 2021 and confirmed that the garage door and poster had been removed. Although the letter did not mention the discarded piece of hardboard, the resident has confirmed to this Service that the hardboard had also been removed (possibly by the cleaner). The landlord stated in its letter that the poster had not been removed earlier because of an oversight on its part, for which it apologised. The landlord therefore arranged removal of the three items mentioned by the resident and gave a reason for the delay in removing the poster. This Service has seen no evidence to suggest that the delay in the removal of the poster was not due to an oversight. Therefore, the action taken by the landlord to remove the items and the explanation provided were reasonable.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 July 2021 to ask for his complaint to be escalated because he was unhappy that it had taken two months to remove the poster. The resident indicated that the service failure reflected a wider caretaking problem on the estate.
The landlord sent its stage two response on 9 August 2021, in which it identified that there had been five visits by the caretaker over a three month period and that the caretaker had reported various issues (these were listed in the landlord’s letter). Based on the caretaker’s visits and issues reported, the landlord concluded that the caretaker had been “actively inspecting your building, and identifying and reporting faults [they] have come across”.
The number of visits listed in the stage two letter was inconsistent with the information in the landlord’s stage one letter, which stated that the caretaker visited every Monday and Friday. This suggests that about 20 visits would take place in a three month period. The landlord has provided this Service with records to show that during June-August 2021 there were 20 visits and all of the visits were on Mondays and Fridays. Therefore, although the landlord’s stage two letter indicates a shortfall of visits during the period referred to in the letter, the landlord’s subsequent records indicate that the frequency of visits increased from June-August 2021 and was in line with the information quoted in the landlord’s stage one response. However, based on the resident’s submission to this Service, the Ombudsman is aware that the resident has continued concerns about the level of the caretaking service despite the increased visits the landlord has recorded. A recommendation is therefore made below in this regard.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage two letter that the number of issues reported by the caretaker was lower than the average number reported by other caretakers, and therefore this had been drawn to the caretaker’s attention. It went on to say that the caretaker’s supervisor would be discussing the matter with the caretaker at their next one-to-one meeting. The landlord upheld the complaint, apologised and thanked the resident for raising “something deserving of wider investigation”. The landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging that the number of issues reported by the caretaker was lower than average and arranging for this to be followed up by the caretaker’s supervisor.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a missed repair appointment and concerns raised about lighting repair works

The landlord’s repairs policy provides various commitments that will be adhered to by the landlord and its contractors. The commitments include:
1. “We will honour appointments made with residents”;
2. “We will give residents as much notice as possible if work will be delayed or has been cancelled”;
3. “We will work carefully around residents’ possessions and property, use temporary covers when necessary and treat residents’ home as if they were our own”.
The landlord’s compensation and redress policy (2019) states that the landlord “will consider a claim for compensation when…appointments are missed”.
The landlord’s compensation and reimbursement policy (2022) states: “Barring exceptional circumstances, a flat payment of £20.00 (subject to review) per appointment will be paid where our operatives / contractors fail to attend an agreed appointment”.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 June 2021 in relation to a repair to his hallway lights and said:
1. The appointment was missed;
2. The operative attended on the following day and did not use dust sheets or tidy up afterwards;
3. The operative had agreed to return on the same day to replace the light bulbs with brighter ones, but failed to do so.
In relation to the missed appointment, the landlord accepted in its stage one and two responses that the appointment had not been kept and apologised for this. It offered compensation of £20, which the landlord said was its standard compensation payment for a missed appointment, and included a link to the relevant compensation form in the stage one and two complaint letters.
This Service has noted that the landlord’s compensation and redress policy (2019), which was in force at the time of the missed appointment, was silent on the amount of compensation to be paid for broken appointments. However, its current compensation and reimbursement policy (2022) says that a flat payment of £20 is payable. Given the short-term inconvenience caused to the resident by the missed appointment, it was appropriate for the landlord to make a compensation award and the amount awarded was in line with the compensation policy it subsequently introduced.
The resident reported that he was given a different explanation for the missed appointment by the operative and a supervisor. The landlord investigated this by speaking to the staff in question and they reportedly could not recall providing this information. As there are different accounts of the conversations, this Service is unable to come to a view on exactly what was said. However, the landlord indicated in its stage two response that it had investigated the reason for the missed appointment, and it would remind the relevant team that parts should be ordered so they arrive sooner, and residents should be given advance notification when it is likely that a repair will be delayed or cancelled. The landlord therefore demonstrated that it had listened to the resident’s concerns and taken steps to avoid this occurring in future. This was therefore a reasonable response and shows that the landlord acted in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, which are: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In response to the resident’s report that the operative had failed to use dust sheets and tidy up afterwards, the landlord stated in its stage two letter that it would remind all operatives of the need to tidy up any mess. This was therefore a reasonable response because the landlord was seeking to avoid the issue reoccurring.
In relation to the replacement of the bulbs for brighter ones, the resident said that the operative had failed to return on the same day to replace the bulbs, despite having promised to do so. The landlord stated in its stage two letter that this was not good customer service and agreed that it would raise a job for the bulbs to be replaced. The resident has recently advised this Service that the bulbs have still not been replaced, which is unreasonable given the time that has elapsed since the landlord sent its stage two letter and agreed to raise a new job. The landlord’s failure to follow up on the commitment made in its final response letter means that it has failed to put things right.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the conduct of a call handler

The landlord accepted in its stage one and two complaint responses that the service received by the resident when he phoned on 2 June 2021 fell below the standard that it considered acceptable. The action taken by the landlord in response to this finding was:
1. The landlord apologised to the resident;
2. The landlord confirmed that it would reiterate to all of its call centre staff the council’s expectations in terms of appropriate call handling;
3. The landlord said that the relevant team would be the subject of random call sampling in order to identify negative trends/behaviours and improve standards;
4. The landlord said that the situation would be used as a tool to aid future training of frontline staff.
The view of this Service is that the actions of the landlord were reasonable in its handling of the resident’s complaint about the call handler’s conduct, because:
1. It investigated the matter and acknowledged the failure of the call handler to meet the required standards;
2. It apologised to the resident;
3. It identified measures to improve and to learn from the service failure.
The landlord therefore took appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns and outlined improvements that it would make to avoid similar shortfalls in its service in future.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the standard of caretaking.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of a missed repair appointment and concerns raised about lighting repair works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint about the conduct of a call handler.

Reasons

Although the landlord did not explain the contradictory information given to the resident regarding the frequency of caretaker inspections, it had acknowledged there was a lower than average number of issues being reported by the caretaker and agreed to investigate this. The landlord has also provided evidence to show that the number of caretaker inspections had increased.
The landlord did not replace the light bulbs in the resident’s hallway with brighter ones, despite agreeing to do so.
The landlord took appropriate action to investigate the conduct of the call handler and then took action to address the service failure and learn from it.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to:
1. Replace the light bulbs in the resident’s hallway with brighter bulbs.
2. Pay the resident a total of £50 compensation (this includes the £20 compensation for the missed appointment, if this has not already been paid, and £30 for the failure to replace the light bulbs).

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord meets with the resident and, if appropriate, with members of the area residents’ association, to discuss ways of improving the caretaker’s onsite visibility and the reporting of issues by the caretaker.