Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202127409)

Decision
Case ID	202127409
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	28 October 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 4-bedroom flat with her adult son and daughter. She told the council and landlord her son has brain damage, limited mobility, and needs an extra bedroom for his care. She reported damp, mould, a broken ventilation system, a leak damaging the kitchen, and a strong sewage smell. She asked us to investigate because the landlord had not moved her to an alternative property or fixed the issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The resident’s rehousing request to the council.
   2. How the landlord responded to the damp and mould at the property, the ventilation system and related repairs.
   3. How the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a sewage smell.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. The resident’s rehousing request to the council is outside of our jurisdiction.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the damp and mould, the ventilation system and related repairs.
   3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the sewage smell.
   4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Rehousing request

5. We cannot investigate this complaint because the resident’s rehousing request was about the council’s responsibilities for its housing register. This falls under the council’s wider executive functions and not its landlord function.

Damp and mould, the ventilation system, and related repairs

6. The landlord failed to meet its repair timeframes, with some delays extending up to 2 years. It did not keep the resident informed, or maintain adequate records, making it difficult to assess its actions. There was no evidence of monitoring its approach when coordinating with the council.

Sewage smell

7. The landlord did not respond to several reports about a sewage smell and failed to monitor or investigate the issue effectively. Poor record keeping made it unclear what actions were taken or why delays occurred. Although some steps were taken in 2024, communication remained inconsistent. It is still unclear whether the problem has been resolved.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord’s complaint investigation did not track and monitor outstanding actions through to completion. And it did not recognise the failures of its repair approach, so it did not try to put things right.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 25 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 made up as follows: £300 for the distress and inconvenience of its repair approach to the damp, mould, ventilation system, and related repairs. £200 for the distress and inconvenience of its repair approach to the sewage smell. £100 for the distress and inconvenience of its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 25 November 2025
3	Compensation order (based on rent) The landlord must pay the resident £336.81. This is based on a proportion of rent between 26 September 2022 and 20 June 2024 at a rent of £186.74 for 633 days. This is to recognise the loss of enjoyment of part of the home.	No later than 25 November 2025
4	Inspection order  The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified person. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.   What the inspection must achieve   The landlord must ensure that the surveyor:  Inspects the ventilation system, sewage smell, guttering, damp and mould and any associated damage to the property. They must produce a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out:  Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of the repair issues.  Whether the landlord is responsible for repairing or resolving the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible.  A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 25 November 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 26 September 2022 and 15 December 2022	The resident made reports about the ventilation system not working and that the kitchen ceiling and laminate flooring had been damaged by a leak. She also said that there was a strong smell of sewage, along with damp and mould in her home, which she said was affecting her family’s health. The landlord scheduled an inspection for 19 December 2022, but it was put on hold due to appointment availability.
Between 13 March 2023 and 27 June 2023	The resident went through the council’s complaint process. This was in relation to the length of time it took to rehouse her, the suitability of the properties it had offered her, and because it had lost some of her medical forms.
11 August 2023	The resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said her family was vulnerable and were living with a sewage smell, damp, mould, and outstanding repairs since moving in.
24 August 2023	The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint in its stage 1 response. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by the sewage smell, mould, and damp. It said: Delays were due to the resident’s request for temporary accommodation. It shared a proposed schedule of works, but no agreement had been reached previously. It aimed to meet with her on 18 September 2023 to finalise the repair plans.
19 October 2023	The landlord cleaned the ventilation system and found it was running appropriately.
21 February 2024	The landlord visited but did not detect a sewage smell. It recommended inspecting the building’s low-level drainage and cleaning the pipework, which was completed by 26 February 2024.
15 March 2024	The landlord carried out a damp, mould, and condensation inspection and found a leak from the guttering. It said the guttering needed unblocking and repairs were needed to the skirting, plasterboard, and ceilings in the bathroom and kitchen. No sewage smell was found. Most of the work, including scaffolding, was completed by 20 June 2024, and the guttering was cleared on 28 August 2024.
3 August 2024	The resident escalated her complaint because she felt the housing conditions were poor and ongoing. She reiterated her concerns from her initial complaint.
20 August 2024	The landlord inspected the ventilation unit and found it was working but needed servicing. It serviced the unit the next day and discovered the air filter needed replacing. It tried to contact the resident to arrange this, but said its calls were not successful.
30 August 2024	In its stage 2 response, the landlord shared a schedule of works from a recent visit, including repairs to the kitchen and toilet, servicing the bedroom window and ventilation system, and unblocking the ACO drainage. It added: It had not detected a drainage smell, but it would treat future reports as emergencies to investigate. It would monitor the repairs but did not uphold the complaint, as it had responded to the resident’s reports appropriately.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us because she felt the landlord had not addressed the cause of the damp and mould, which had damaged her carpet. She also said the poor conditions had affected her family’s health and wanted compensation for personal injuries. Prior to the referral the landlord completed a damp and mould survey. It said the conditions were due to condensation because the home was cluttered. It provided the resident with advice and guidance about how to manage moisture inside the home.

  What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The resident’s rehousing request to the council.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

9. The resident complained that the council had not rehoused her. She also complained about the suitability of the properties it had offered her, and because it had lost some of her medical forms.
10. We can only investigate complaints about councils where they are acting as the landlord under a licence, lease or a social housing tenancy. In this case, the council was not acting in this capacity because the issues relate to the resident’s waiting list application. The management of a council’s waiting list for social housing falls under the council’s wider executive functions. As such, we have no power to investigate this complaint. The resident may be able to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman about these matters.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the damp and mould at the property, the ventilation system and related repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

Ventilation system

11. The landlord’s repair policy commits to responding to routine repairs within 20 days. It did not meet its timescales for any of the resident’s reports.
12. The landlord did not appropriately respond when the resident reported the broken system on 26 September 2022. Although it told the resident a follow up visit was scheduled from a former inspection in August 2022, this was not the case. The landlord did not visit until 23 days later, when it cleaned the system and left it in working order. This was after the resident made another report, causing unnecessary delay and inconvenience.
13. The resident reported the system was faulty on 18 November 2022, but the landlord did not respond. This caused the resident inconvenience as she had to make a further report was on 24 May 2023. The landlord took 44 days to inspect the system from the date of the second report. It is unclear from the evidence why this could not take place sooner. Given that the repair had been outstanding since November 2022, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to try to expedite it. On inspection, the landlord identified a fault, and although it cleaned the unit it did not take any action to repair it. It is unclear why this was the case. However, this was a failure to monitor the repair through to completion and contributed to the overall delay.
14. On 12 June 2024 the resident reported that the previous visit had not fixed the issue. The landlord took a further 70 days to attend and service the system. We have seen no evidence which suggests that the landlord was unable to attend sooner. We therefore consider this was an unreasonable delay. The contractor said the system was working correctly but the air filter needed replacing. It is unclear how the landlord resolved the fault it identified at its previous visit. However, it made appropriate attempts to contact the resident to arrange the outstanding work.

Damp and mould and other associated repairs

15. The landlord’s repair policy commits to attending to minor leaks urgently, within 5 days. The landlord failed to inspect the reported leak and damage from 26 September 2022, resulting in the resident having to follow up on 15 December 2022. Although a job was raised, no appointment was scheduled, and there is no evidence of any effort to progress the inspection. This was a missed opportunity to appropriately assess and resolve the repairs. This contributed to the subsequent 8-month delay in taking further action. The repair was urgent. But the landlord did not try to access the property during this time. Nor did it consider whether taking legal advice was proportionate so it could carry out its repair obligations.
16. The landlord said the resident was reluctant to proceed with repairs without temporary accommodation. However, the available evidence on this matter was limited, preventing a full assessment of its impact on the overall delay. The landlord should clearly document any delays it encounters, including any advice given to the resident or received from other parties. This was needed to demonstrate it was acting appropriately in the circumstances. This was also a missed opportunity to show how it considered household vulnerabilities, sought to reduce disruption caused by the repairs, and tried to mitigate the property conditions in the short term.
17. No further action was taken until the landlord’s stage 1 response in August 2023, which included a schedule of works we have not seen. It is also unclear whether the meeting on 18 September 2023 occurred or what was agreed. Record keeping was poor around these events, and no further action is evident until an inspection on 18 March 2024. This was 1 year and 5 months after the initial report, which was an excessive delay. This would have caused the resident a loss of enjoyment of her home over a protracted period.
18. The inspection identified ongoing leaks from the guttering and a suspected bathroom leak. Follow-on works were raised but then paused while the council considered a permanent transfer. There is no evidence the landlord monitored this situation, so again we cannot confirm it was appropriately managing the repairs. It ought to document any action it takes to show the reason for delays, efforts it is making in progressing repairs, and any mitigation efforts.
19. Most repairs were completed on 20 June 2024. This was 1 year and 8 months after the initial report. The guttering was cleared on 28 August 2024, nearly 2 years later. These were significant departures from the landlord’s 20-day timeframe in its repairs policy. Additionally, the landlord’s complaint response noted a number of outstanding repairs. Therefore, it is unclear if the repair records were accurate. Based on the standard of record keeping the landlord did not satisfy us that the delays were unavoidable or reasonable in the circumstances. There is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident consistently informed about the required repairs or their expected timelines. Nor did it show it engaged with her meaningfully about the delays.
20. Overall, the landlord demonstrated poor communication, inadequate record keeping, and a lack of timely action, which collectively resulted in significant delays and uncertainty in addressing the resident’s repairs. Had the landlord assessed the reports made in line with its policy, it is likely the resident would not have suffered distress and inconvenience. Within her communication, the resident expressed concern about the impact these matters had on the health of her family. While her concerns are noted, she may wish to pursue this via the landlord’s liability insurer or through the courts where expert medical opinion can be sought. We have made a series of orders, in accordance with our guidance on remedies that aims to restore the resident’s position so far as reasonably possible.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a sewage smell.
Finding	Maladministration

21. The resident made several reports about a sewage smell from 26 September 2022 onwards. The landlord failed to respond to 3 reports between 30 November 2022 and 13 December 2022, causing the resident distress and inconvenience. Although a job was then raised, no appointments were made, and it was not monitored or progressed.
22. A further 3 reports made during 2023 were not actioned, contributing to the delay. Because of the standard of record keeping, we are unclear if the delays were linked to its coordination with the council, or an inability to access the home. It also meant we could not confirm whether the smell was due to be investigated as part of its stage 1 response. Because of this we could not assess all the reasons for the delay and could not be satisfied it was taking adequate steps to progress to the resident’s reports during this period.
23. Following another report on 19 February 2024, the landlord appropriately inspected the property the next day. It found no smell and took reasonable steps to clean pipework and check neighbouring drainage. It also appropriately monitored for smells during other visits but found none. However, this was 1 year and 4 months after the initial report, which was an excessive delay and a departure from its repair policy timeframes. This would have caused distress to the resident. Further, it did not respond to the resident’s next report on 9 August 2024 until its stage 2 complaint response, 21 days later. While its offer to treat future reports as emergencies was constructive, it should have communicated and adopted this approach sooner. It remains unclear whether the issue has now been resolved.

Complaint	How the landlord responded to the associated complaint.
Finding	Maladministration

24. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint procedure within 9 working days of the resident’s complaint. This was in line with the former Code (published in October 2022) that was in force at the time.
25. The landlord appropriately called the resident within 4 working days to acknowledge the  escalation request. It issued its stage 2 complaint response 15 working days later. This was in line with the current Code (published April 2024).
26. While the landlord’s responses were timely, it missed the opportunity to track the outstanding repairs through to conclusion. Given the lengthy delays the resident experienced, we do not consider the landlord did this appropriately, which was a departure from the Code. This added to the resident’s distress.
27. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it had responded appropriately to the resident’s reports. It is unclear how the landlord reached this conclusion given the evidence we have seen. However, it does raise concerns over how thorough the complaints investigation was. We consider that the failings we have set out above should have been reasonably identifiable and that the landlord missed an opportunity to put things right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord should ensure that it keeps accurate records of all its communications that evidence any delays relating to repair jobs. And its communications with the resident about the repairs.