Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202116667)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116667

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

27 February 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to his mirror.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for storage whilst external works were carried out to the building.
3. The landlord’s management of external works to the building.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. He occupies a one bedroom flat on the ninth floor within a block (the building), which is owned and managed by the landlord.
The landlord’s compensation and redress policy advises residents to take out home contents insurance at the start of their tenancy to insure personal possession against damage. The policy says liability claims against the landlord should be made to its insurance team using a claim form.
On 10 March 2021, the landlord held a meeting with residents of the building to confirm the planned external works. The works included replacement of the external weather insulation, window replacement, balcony replacement, roof renewal and installation of a smoke and ventilation shaft.
A further meeting took place on 5 May 2021, providing detail on the works, which included:
1. The scaffolding map, detailing the order of work.
2. Health and safety issues that had been considered.
3. Timeframe of the works.
4. Storage for items from balconies. Residents were told storage would “be assessed on a case-by-case basis [and that] residents should consult their own insurance companies”.
On 20 May 2021 the landlord conducted a pre-condition survey of the resident’s property. During the survey the resident was told to remove items from the external walls due to the vibrations from the works. The resident asked for storage and was told it was not available but the landlord was looking into it. However, during the survey the resident was told he was expected to find a suitable place to store his items.
On 28 April 2021 and 6 May 2021, the landlord told the resident scaffolding would be erected on 12 May 2021. It explained the order in which it would be installed.
In July 2021, the landlord sent a newsletter to residents of the building saying that:
1. The works would cause vibrations affecting walls and residents should take down any personal items hanging on walls.
2. Weekly updates would be uploaded onto the electronic noticeboard every Monday.
3. A respite area would be available for residents between 9am and 4pm on weekdays.
4. Resident meetings would take place on 7 July 2021 and 8 September 2021. It said these meetings were an opportunity for it to hear suggestions about how it could deliver future work more effectively and provide an update on the ongoing works.
5. Progress meetings would take place on 28 July 2021 and 25 August 2021. It said these meetings would ensure resident views and ideas were a part of the project delivery.
6. Resident safety panel meetings would take place on 22 July 2021, 28 September 2021 and 23 November, to allow residents to raise any concerns.
On 6 August 2021, the resident sent an email to the landlord saying that he had arrived home to find his antique mirror broken on the floor. He explained the sentimental value of the mirror and how he felt finding it damaged. The resident expressed dissatisfaction in not being warned that works were taking place outside his bedroom window. He said had he been warned he could have removed the mirror for its protection. He also said that a warning would have allowed him to stay away from the property due to the level of noise. The landlord treated the resident’s email of 6 August 2021 as a complaint.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 23 August 2021. It confirmed its understanding of the resident’s complaint and what he sought in resolution of the issues. It said;
1. The contractor had confirmed that work had not reached the resident’s floor on the date of the reported damage and that the contractor had declined to compensate the resident.
2. Due to the nature of the works, noise would be expected but kept to a minimum. It recommended use of the respite area.
3. It said letters were sent on 28 April 2021 and 6 May 2021 advising of the works.
4. It said that a newsletter from July 2021 advised residents that works might cause vibrations and that personal items should be removed from the walls.
5. It said that its officer informed the resident to remove items from walls during a pre-condition survey.
6. It further added that weekly updates were uploaded on to electronic noticeboards informing residents of the location of upcoming works.
7. It found no evidence to show the contractor breached its code of conduct.
8. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint saying that whilst the resident was asked to remove items from the wall it could not rule out the possibility of the transfer of vibrations. It did not offer compensation to the resident.
On 17 September 2021, the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process:
1. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage one response and explained the sentimental value of his damaged mirror.
2. The resident agreed he was told to take items off the wall but explained he had seven foot mirrors and did not have space to store them.
3. He expressed his unhappiness with not being offered storage for his items. He informed the landlord that it was unrealistic to expect residents to clear their entire walls for the duration of the works without offering storage.
4. He informed the landlord that he had photographic evidence to show that its contractors were on his floor.
5. The resident informed the landlord of his concerns about how its contractors were working in terms of its approach to scaffolding, and the timeframe taken up to that point to progress the works.
On 6 October 2021 the landlord’s internal email said it had spoken to the resident who had told it that the value of the mirror was around £500 taking account of its sentimental value. The resident confirmed storage was now available but wouldn’t be suitable for the other mirrors he had due to their size and that he was not be prepared to remove everything from his walls for a year, as he felt that was how long the works would take.
On 15 October 2021, the landlord issued its stage two response.
1. It acknowledged the distress caused by the damage to the mirror especially in light of its sentimental value. However, it said it found the mirror could be purchased for £30-£80.
2. It said that it did not consider itself liable for the damage, adding that the work at that time should not have caused enough disturbance to the surrounding areas to produce vibrations.
3. It told the resident that at the time of the alleged damage the contractor was working on the floor below the resident and continued to work there until the required work was complete.
4. It found advanced warnings were provided on electronic notice boards in the building as to where scaffolding would be placed.
5. It acknowledged that scaffolding works started in May 2021 and the resident’s frustration at the pace of works. It apologised for the impact of this and explained that some of the delays were outside its control.
6. It provided reassurance to the resident about the contractor’s skills and expertise behind the logic used for how it completed the work.
7. It accepted that noise generated from the work could be disruptive and inconvenient, but explained strict instructions were implemented for noise disturbances, including no noisy works before 8.30am or after 4.30pm.
8. The landlord told the resident that it was unable to offer storage facilities but explained it would be keen to try to assist residents where possible. Although it said it was not legally required to do so, it directed the resident to a contact if he wanted to discuss storage.
9. The landlord said it would not offer compensation to the resident for damaged personal belongings and said it did not consider itself legally liable. It encouraged all its residents to obtain home contents insurance.
10. The landlord said that if the resident did not have home contents insurance, it could refer the case to its own insurers to investigate whether it was liable. It told the resident that he would need to request and complete a claim form if this was an avenue he wished to pursue.
The landlord’s letter dated 15 October 2021 was its final response to the resident’s complaint confirming that the complaint had exhausted its internal complaints process.
On 22 October 2021 the resident approached this Service explaining he was unhappy with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
During the course of this investigation the resident has informed this Service that the external works to the building are still ongoing and that there was a period of 11 months when no works had been carried out. This has undoubtedly been distressing for the resident. However, the Ombudsman’s role is to investigate complaints brought to it that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process. This investigation report, therefore, concerns the matters which were the subject of the resident’s formal complaint and the landlord’s final response dated 15 October 2021. Any new issues would need to be raised as a new complaint with the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to his mirror

The evidence shows the landlord told the resident about the works taking place at the building prior to them starting and set regular meetings once the work had begun. The landlord asked the resident on 20 May 2021, to remove items from his external walls and it issued a reminder in its newsletter in July 2021. The landlord also provided weekly updates on works to act as further reminders. The approach followed by the landlord here was appropriate in the circumstances.
Once the mirror damage was reported, the landlord appropriately followed up on the matter with its contractor and explained its position in its stage one response.
As set out in its compensation and redress policy, residents are advised to insure their personal belongings against damage. The landlord therefore acted appropriately in informing the resident in its stage two complaint response that it would not offer compensation to the resident for damaged personal belongings.
The landlord also acted reasonably and demonstrated a resolution focused approach in offering to refer the case to its own insurers to investigate whether it was liable.
Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to the resident’s mirror. The landlord acted appropriately in providing several reminders to remove items from walls and in informing the resident that it would not provide compensation for damaged belongings. It also acted reasonably in following up the damage with its contractor and in offering to refer the resident to its insurer.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for storage whilst external works were carried out to the building

On 5 May 2021, the landlord told residents that it would assess storage on a case-by-case basis. At a pre-condition survey on 20 May 2021 the resident was told that storage options were being looked into and that whilst it did this the resident should find a suitable place to store items.
It was reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident that it was looking into storage and how it would assess storage on a case-by-case basis.
On 17 September 2021, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process expressing his unhappiness in not being offered storage. The evidence shows the landlord spoke to the resident and in an internal email on 6 October 2021 it said the resident confirmed storage was available at that time. However, it said the resident found the storage offered was unsuitable for his other mirrors due to size and how he was not prepared to remove everything from his walls for the duration of the work.
In its stage two response, the landlord told the resident that it was unable to offer storage facilities and it was not under a legal obligation to do so. It added that all residents were informed of this at the pre-condition survey and at resident meetings.
The landlord’s communication around storage was not clear at times. Whilst it said it was not under a legal obligation to provide storage facilities, it did say it would assess storage on a case-by-case basis and when the resident requested storage, he was told it was being looked into. There is no evidence to show it updated the resident on his request for storage. Instead, almost five months after the request for storage, it provided an update and told the resident the steps to take for his storage request to be recorded and offered.
The landlord may have faced some challenges in finding storage. However, it did not keep the resident updated with his request for storage until after he escalated his complaint to stage two of its complaint process. This was unreasonable.
It is acknowledged that once storage was offered the resident declined it. As such, whilst it is accepted that the resident would have been caused some frustration by the lack of storage, the impact of this is mitigated by the resident’s later statements declining the available storage options.

The landlord’s management of external works to the building

The resident’s initial complaint raised concerns about the level of noise from the works. In his escalated complaint the resident raised further concerns about the level of noise and the pace at which works were being carried out when contractors had been on site for five months. The resident also expressed dissatisfaction at the “disorganised” way the works were being carried out.
The landlord’s meetings held on 10 March 2021 and 5 May 2021 provided details of the order of work and the expected timeframe. It explained that due to the number of elements involved the work would take some time. The landlord also provided details of a respite area for residents and details of how it would continue to update residents on works. The landlord provided appropriate information on who residents could contact if they had queries about works.
In its letters on 28 April 2021 and 6 May 2021 the landlord told the resident that scaffolding would be erected on 12 May 2021 and the order in which the scaffolding would be installed.
The landlord’s July 2021 newsletter provided further details of the respite area away from the work disturbances. The landlord also reminded residents of the dates for future progress meetings. The information provided by the landlord about the works was reasonable at that time.
In its stage two response the landlord acknowledged the resident’s frustration at the pace of works and offered an apology for the impact of this. It explained that it had taken away learning for future works but said some events contributing to the delays were outside its control. It also explained the works were a complex operation and could seem disorganised. However, it acted reasonably in explaining the logic of its work plan and in its attempts to reassure the resident that the operatives were qualified, well trained and knew the safety critical aspect of the works.
Overall, at that time, the landlord kept the resident informed of the plans for works prior to them starting, and whilst works were ongoing through regular progress meetings, newsletters and weekly updates. The approach adopted by the landlord here was reasonable.
The landlord provided a quiet space for the resident to use if he wished to be away from the noise of the works. In offering a respite area the landlord demonstrated it had considered the possible impact of noise and provided an appropriate solution in the circumstances.
It is acknowledged that the resident would have been impacted by the works. However, the landlord’s communication shows it made the resident reasonably aware of the order of works, the progress made and of its desire to keep communication channels open to allow the resident to raise queries.
Major works cannot always have exact timescales due to the nature and scale of works and the necessity of repair and maintenance in line with the landlord’s obligations.
The landlord acknowledged the frustration at the pace of works at that time, whilst it explained this was outside its control it demonstrated a clear understanding of the works and its management of them. The landlord told the resident it had taken learning away from the works, showing it had insight into how it could improve and learn.
Overall, the landlord’s response to concerns about its management of the works was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s requests for storage whilst external works were carried out to the building.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. response to the resident’s reports of damage to his mirror.
2. management of the external works to the building.

Reasons

The landlord told the resident to remove items from the external wall prior to works commencing at the building. When the resident reported damage to his mirror the landlord followed up on the concerns with its contractor and updated the resident of its response. The landlord acted appropriately in informing the resident that it would not provide compensation for damaged belongings, and it offered to refer the resident to its insurer.
The landlord informed the resident it was looking into storage and that it would expect the resident to find suitable storage in the interim. The resident requested storage on 20 May 2021, and it was not until after he escalated his complaint that the landlord followed up on this request. There was a service failing here. A finding of service failure is appropriate in circumstances where the landlord should have updated the resident sooner than it did and where the impact of the failing is minor especially when considering the comments made by the resident once storage was offered.
The landlord kept the resident reasonably updated on how works would be completed prior to them starting and made a quiet space available for residents. The landlord held resident meetings, conducted a pre-condition survey, provided regular progress meetings, update newsletters and weekly updates on the work planned. The landlord kept avenues open for continued conversation with residents about the works and in its stage two response showed it was keen to work with the resident. The approach adopted by the landlord was appropriate and its response to concerns about its management of the works was reasonable.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. The landlord pay the resident compensation of £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the highlighted failure in its response to the resident’s request for storage.
2. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service of compliance with the above order.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord contact the resident to provide an update on the ongoing works and the timetable for completion of the works. If in that contact the resident expresses dissatisfaction the landlord should treat this as a new complaint.