Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202124640)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124640

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

29 July 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 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 response to the resident’s reports of damage to his kitchen units during pest–proofing works.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of the property and he is disabled.
3. The landlord’s pest–proofing contractor attended the property on 30 June 2021 in response to the resident’s previous report of a rodent infestation there. During the pest–proofing works, the kitchen worktops, sink, and corner–cupboard base unit had to be removed and reinstalled, in order to access the pests’ point of entry. A gas engineer was also required to attend the property. While attending, the landlord’s contractor advised the resident that the kitchen units were in a poor state of repair, and that repairs were necessary to restore the kitchen units back to good working order, including to bolt the worktops back together.
4. The resident then contacted the landlord on 1, 7, 14, 15 and 30 July and 16 and 23 September 2021, as he was unhappy with the reinstallation of his kitchen, for which it liaised with him and internally throughout this period to complete pest-proofing and seek remedial works for the kitchen. He stated that the pest–proofing contractor had left his worktop cracked, chipped and unbolted, and that his kitchen units appeared to be further weakened and his sink cracked. The resident also advised the landlord that, due to his vulnerabilities, the situation was beginning to make him sick.
5. On 7 December 2021, the resident raised a stage one complaint directly with the landlord about its pest-proofing contractor damaging his kitchen, after previously indicated to it that he wanted it to contact him to take this, and it responded  on 23 December 2021. It explained that it had been informed that his kitchen units had to be removed to allow pest–proofing to take place to prevent rodents gaining access, but that the units were not robust or of the same quality that it had installed having instead been fitted by him, so that their structural weakness was increased by the contractor refitting these as best they could. Although the landlord’s contractor reported that they had not damaged the resident’s kitchen unit and worktops, it agreed to repair and make good the kitchen, and look to replace the worktop in the new year.
6. The resident asked to move the complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on the same day, as he was unhappy with the stage one response, while it recorded that it would inspect his kitchen on 17 January 2022 to determine the scope of the works required for the units and worktop. Its subsequent final stage complaint response of 18 January 2022 stated that it only partially upheld his complaint, referring to its stage complaint response’s offer of repairs as a gesture of goodwill. The landlord said that the resident did not have its permission to install the kitchen, and that this had been fitted to a poor professional standard. As a result, it disputed any responsibility for damage incurred by this during the necessary pest–proofing works, but it agreed to contact him to arrange the repairs to the kitchen.
7. The landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s property on 14 February 2022 to fit the new worktops and kitchen base units. However, the contractors found that they were unable to do so, as there were issues fitting these to the cooker. The landlord’s contractors carried out a post–work inspection on 4 April 2022, confirming that new worktops and a sink would need to be ordered, recommending further measurements. It then re-attended the property on 3 May 2022, advising the resident of a target date to complete repairs by 27 May 2022.
8. The resident nevertheless complained to this Service because he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s contractor damaging his kitchen units during pest–proofing works. He disputed that there had been anything wrong with his original units that he had been told he could choose, considered that these had only been weakened by the contractor’s damage, and sought a like-for-like new worktop and ceramic sink from the landlord instead of the thinner breakfast bar and metal sink that it had offered him.

Assessment and findings

9. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairing kitchen units that have been provided by it. For planned repairs to replace kitchen units, it gives a timeframe for it to respond to these within 90 days. The landlord’s repairs policy and the resident’s tenancy agreement oblige him to first obtain its written consent to remove or alter its fixed units, fixtures or fittings.
10. The landlord’s compensation and reimbursement policy requires it to offer the resident either remedial work or vouchers to carry out such work himself for damage to his fixtures from its or its contractors’ works, with liability claims for such damage to be referred to its insurance team. It is recommended to offer discretionary compensation for long delays that it is partially responsible for from £200.
11. The resident repeatedly contacted the landlord from 1 July 2021 onwards to report that its pest–proofing contractor had damaged his kitchen units during their proofing works at his property on 30 June 2021. While the landlord then liaised with him and internally at that time to complete the pest-proofing at the property and to seek remedial works for the kitchen, it did not confirm its position on the works to him until its stage one complaint response of 23 December 2021, when it agreed to repair this. This was 85 days later than its repairs policy’s 90-day timeframe for it to respond to repairs to replace kitchen units, which was an unreasonably excessive delay for it to confirm its response to him about this.
12. As the resident was then advised by the landlord that its pest-proofing contractor had denied damaging his kitchen units, and that he had installed weakened without the necessary consent from it required by its repairs policy and his tenancy agreement, it found that it was not obliged to repair these. While he disputed the condition of his units prior to the pest-proofing works and that he did not have consent for these, it was appropriate for it to rely on the expertise of its contractors about this, in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary.
13. The landlord’s stage one complaint response of 23 December 2021 nevertheless offered to repair the resident’s kitchen units as a gesture of goodwill, which was suitable as the damage to these had occurred after its pest-proofing and he was disabled and reported that he was becoming sick from his vulnerabilities. Therefore, it was expected to complete these repairs in line with its repairs policy’s 90-day timescale for repairs to replace kitchen units after it had agreed to do so. However, the resident continued to experience further delays in the completion of the repairs by the landlord, until a completion date of 27 May 2022 was given to him by it, which was another inappropriately lengthy delay of 65 days later than the repairs policy’s timeframe.
14. As a result, the resident experienced lengthy kitchen unit repair delays from the landlord totalling 150 days, which was contrary to its repairs policy. Although the lack of confirmation that it was responsible for the original damage to them meant that it was only partially responsible for this. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident the £200 discretionary compensation for long delays that it is partially responsible for, as recommended by its compensation and reimbursement policy, in recognition of any distress and inconvenience that he experienced from this.
15. While the resident has also sought for the landlord to provide him with like-for-like replacements for his damaged kitchen worktop and ceramic sink, it has been recommended below to provide him with details to enable him to submit a liability insurance claim for these damages to its insurance team. This is because this Service does not have the authority or expertise to determine liability or award damages for his damaged fixtures in the way that a court or insurer might, whereas its compensation and reimbursement policy requires such claims to be referred to the insurance team, which may be able to do so. The landlord has also been recommended below to review its staff’s relevant training needs to try and prevent its failings in the resident’s case from occurring again.

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to his kitchen units during pest–proofing works.

Order and recommendations

17. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation within four weeks in recognition of any distress and inconvenience that he experienced from its delays in responding to his reports of damage to his kitchen units and in completing its repairs to the units.
18. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Provide the resident with details to enable him to submit a liability insurance claim to its insurance team for his damaged fixtures.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its repairs and compensation and reimbursement policies for planned repairs to seek to ensure that these are timely and that delays to them are appropriately remedied in every case.
19. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order, and whether it will follow the above recommendations.