Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202118683)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118683

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

24 June 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 is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of repairs to the resident’s shower.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The landlord installed a wet floor shower in the resident’s property in August 2020. The resident reported low water pressure and temperature from the shower in October 2020. The landlord attended and noted that the water was not hot enough. It is unclear what its subsequent actions were, and the resident reported similar issues in May 2021. The landlord attended and replaced the shower head and hose in July 2021.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the shower repair. She said she was without hot water for almost a year and that the landlord should have checked there were no issues when it completed the installation. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it said it raised a work order to address the water issues in November 2020 but did not complete it due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It acknowledged that it would have been useful if a surveyor had attended upon completion, or in November 2020 to carry out necessary checks. It offered her £150 compensation for the delay in rectifying the issue.
  4. In the resident’s complaint to this Service she said the lack of hot water had negatively impacted her pre-existing medical condition. She also advised she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation. The landlord advised it would increase its offer to £200.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has explained how the lack of hot water impacted her health and her pre-existing medical condition. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Such issues would be better suited to be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or insurer. This is as both avenues will be able to call on medical experts and make binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Handling of shower repairs

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it can offer up to £250 compensation when the landlord’s failing has had a medium impact on the resident. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for repairs to the water supply to the property. It will attend to routine repairs (for example minor, containable leaks) within 20 days, and planed repairs (for example, replacing sinks) within 90 days.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation for distress and inconvenience. The Remedies Guidance suggests awards between £50 and £250 for cases where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. Examples include failure to meet service standards for actions and responses (such as repair delays) but where the failure had no significant impact on the outcome of the complaint.
  3. The resident had a wet floor shower installed in August 2020. The landlord completed a practical completion certificate in September 2020. The resident raised concerns in October 2020 with the water pressure and temperature. The landlord attended, but it failed to carry out any follow on work as a result of the inspection.
  4. When the resident reported her concerns again in May 2021 the landlord attended to inspect. It then raised a work order for June 2021. However, this appointment did not go ahead. The landlord explained that this was due to a misunderstanding between itself and the resident. It apologised, and confirmed that another appointment would go ahead to carry out repairs. The issue then continued in July 2021, and the landlord replaced the shower hose.
  5. The landlord offered the resident £200 compensation for its delay rectifying the problem.  It explained that it failed to carry out follow on work in November 2020 due to the COVID-19 lockdown. It also said it failed to arrange for its surveyor to carry out inspections in August and November. It apologised for its failings. It explained that as a result of its shortcomings it would ensure it would carry out full inspections in the future so as not to repeat similar mistakes.
  6. The landlord’s offer was reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. This is because whilst the resident has advised that she was without hot water, in actual fact, the property did have hot water, but the resident was unadvised that the temperature had been set to 43 degrees, which she stated was not hot enough for her. The Thermostatic Mixing Valve Manufacturers Association (TMVA) provides the Recommended Code of Practice for Safe Water Temperatures, noting that a temperature of not more than 43ºC should be used in showers. As such, whilst the resident was uninformed of this, the landlord had followed industry guidelines.
  7. The landlord did however note its general failings in the handling of the follow on works required and the compensation offered was also in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (explained above). Whilst there was a delay on the landlord’s behalf in finding a resolution to the issue, no evidence has been provided for this investigation to show the delay caused a significant or long term impact to the resident. Although it is understandable that the delay would have inconvenienced the resident, there is no evidence to show she continued to report the issue between November 2020 and May 2021; there was hot water in the property and as such the offer of compensation was reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.  
  8. Ultimately, the landlord demonstrated that it had followed the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles which are to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The landlord was transparent as it acknowledged its errors. It offered a fair amount of compensation in light of the delays. It also set out what it had learnt from the resident’s complaint and attempted to reassure her it would take steps to avoid similar mistakes. These were reasonable steps to redress its shortcomings.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it will respond to stage one complaints within ten working days. It will respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint on 1 June 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response on 16 June 2021. The resident then escalated her complaint on 21 June 2021. The landlord issued a follow up stage one response on 7 July 2021. On 11 July 2021 the resident responded to the landlord and set out why she remained dissatisfied. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 5 November 2021.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy does not stipulate when, or whether it issues follow up stage one responses. As such, it is unclear why it added this additional stage if it was not part of its formal process. The landlord should have escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two on 21 June 2021. Its failure to do so caused an unreasonable delay, and a delay in the resident being able to bring her complaint to this Service for an investigation.
  4. The landlord also exceeded its target response timeframe for stage two complaints, and therefore failed to act in accordance with its policy. Whilst no evidence has been provided for this investigation to show that the landlord’s delay caused a long term or significant impact on the resident, it was still a failing on its behalf. Therefore, the landlord will be ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (as explained above) for the distress and inconvenience this may have caused from its delay.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation for its handling of the shower repair which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £200 previously offered for its delays, if it has not done so already, as this was the basis of our finding of reasonable redress.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 for the inconvenience and delay experienced as a result of the service failure identified with its complaint handling.

This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made.