Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202205794)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205794

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

18 July 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:
1. Landlord’s handling of the resident’s move.
2. Condition of the property when let to the resident.
3. Landlord’s response to boiler breakdowns.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord who resides at the property with her 2 adult children. She was offered the property, a 3-bedroom 1st floor maisonette, through the landlord’s management move process.
The resident is physically disabled and has diagnosed mental health conditions. She is a survivor of domestic abuse. The resident’s daughter made a report of “harassment/stalking” to police shortly before the management move was completed.
Prior to the resident’s tenancy beginning, the landlord carried out remedial repairs or ‘void works’ to the property. As part of this a “full rewire of the dwelling” was completed by a contractor on 13 November 2021 with a ‘domestic electrical installation certificate’ produced.
The landlord’s gas contractor issued a ‘landlord gas safety record’ on 8 December 2021 which noted that the gas supply to the property was capped at the meter.
The landlord carried out a ‘post-void inspection’ of the property on 9 December 2021 to ensure it was of a lettable standard.
On 13 December 2021, the resident signed the tenancy agreement for the property.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has stated that one of the reasons she was granted a management move by the landlord related to a breach of general data protection regulations (GDPR). This matter was referred to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) and the resident advises her complaint was upheld. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord has not acknowledged the ICO’s findings, or the consequences of the breach, and offered an apology for this. She stated this as one of her desired outcomes of bringing her complaint to this Service.
Issues surrounding breaches of GDPR fall wholly within the remit of the ICO, which has already investigated the matter. As such, this Service is unable to investigate, assess or make orders and recommendations related to this matter.

Summary of events

On 14 December 2021, the landlord raised an order for its contractor to uncap the gas supply at the property. It requested it was done urgently due to the resident’s move being a ‘sensitive case’. The contractor attempted to call the resident and left a voicemail.
On 15 December 2021, a removal company arranged by the landlord attempted to help the resident move property. However, it was unable to complete the move in one day and advised it would not be able to return until after Christmas.
On 16 December 2021, the landlord arranged for a second removal company to attend and complete the move.
On 18 December 2021, the landlord’s contractor attended to uncap the gas supply at the property. The contractor advised the resident that the boiler was not functioning and required replacing due to its age.
On 20 December 2021, the resident’s sister made a formal complaint on her behalf. She expressed dissatisfaction at the resident being given only 10 days’ notice to move, and then being moved into a property with no heating and hot water during winter. She claimed the resident’s physical and mental health had declined due to the situation and requested that the landlord either accommodate the resident and her children in a hotel or provide support with the costs of running the electric heaters she had been provided with.
On the same day, the landlord booked the resident and her daughter into a nearby hotel until 30 December 2021 (her son was staying elsewhere initially but was later added to the booking).
The landlord’s contractor installed a new boiler at the property on 24 December 2021. On 29 December 2021, the contractor carried out a ‘post inspection’ of the boiler and heating system. It noted all was in good working order with the exception of one radiator in the lounge.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 December 2021, having visited the property. She also reported the issue with the lounge radiator, and that some of the plug sockets in the property were not working.
On 29 December 2021, the resident’s daughter tested positive for covid-19. As a result, the landlord extended the hotel booking to 5 January 2022. A short while later the booking was further extended to 12 January 2022 due to the resident also contracting covid-19.
On 10 January 2022, the landlord had a second contractor carry out a quality control inspection of the newly installed boiler. The landlord also attempted to repair the non-functioning plug sockets, but was unable to access these due to the resident’s belongings obstructing them.
On 21 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the boiler had stopped working. The landlord’s contractor attended and reinstated the boiler, however, shortly after it left, the boiler stopped working again.
On 22 January 2022, the resident’s sister contacted the landlord’s out of hours helpline on her behalf. The helpline made an offer of emergency accommodation out of the area. The resident’s sister said that she was unable to make contact with the resident to discuss this offer as the resident had ‘disengaged’ as she “was in so much mental distress and anguish that she had not been able to wash or sleep or eat and she had withdrawn into herself”.
On 23 January 2022, the resident presented herself at the hotel the landlord had previously booked her into. She explained the situation to hotel staff who contacted the landlord’s out of hours helpline. The landlord made a booking for the resident to stay in the hotel overnight.
On 24 January 2022, the landlord attended the property and reinstated the boiler again. It arranged to return the following morning to check it was still functioning. A short while later the boiler stopped working again. The resident called the landlord’s out of hours helpline and was booked back into the hotel.
On 25 January 2022, the landlord and its contractor inspected the heating system. They found a leak from a radiator in the lounge, which was repaired, and the boiler settings were adjusted. The landlord stated it would return to check the boiler again in the morning and the resident should remain in the hotel.
On the evening of 25 January 2022, the resident returned to the hotel and was told by staff that there was no booking for her. She called the landlord’s out of hours helpline which arranged a booking 90 minutes later.
On 26 January 2022, the landlord inspected the boiler and found an error message which required the manufacturer to inspect. It also located a second leak from a radiator in the bedroom which was repaired and it reinstated the boiler.
On 27 January 2022, the landlord checked the boiler and found it was still in working order. On 28 January 2022, an engineer from the boiler’s manufacturer also attended and thoroughly checked the boiler.
On 17 February 2022, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It:
1. Apologised for the delay and stated this was due to ensuring it provided a comprehensive response addressing all of the points of complaint.
2. Said that its priority had been for the resident to move as quickly as possible, as requested by her. However, it apologised for not appropriately advising the initial removal company that a ‘full pack’ of the resident’s belongings was required.
3. Said that the property had been through its standard void process, with works carried out by its contractor and a post inspection completed on 9 December 2021. It acknowledged that further works had been identified after the resident moved in but described these as ‘snagging issues’ which ‘would be expected’.
4. Apologised for the fact 2 electrical sockets in the property had not been working and had booked these in to be repaired that week. It stated it had previously been unable to reach these due to the resident’s belongings being in the way.
5. Confirmed that 2 landlord gas safety records were completed before the resident moved in, both of which stated the gas was capped, and it was only after the gas supply was uncapped on 18 December 2021 that it was deemed necessary to replace the boiler.
6. Said that it had booked the resident and her daughter into a hotel whilst the new boiler was installed, and had left it in full working order on 10 January 2022 when she returned to the property.
7. It had received confirmation on 1 February 2022 that the property was ready for occupation with the heating and hot water fully operational and the radiator in the living room repaired.
8. Stated that the resident’s vulnerabilities and circumstances had been considered throughout events.
9. Offered £195 compensation for the costs of the resident using electric fan heaters between 12 January 2022 and 24 January 2022.
On 8 March 2022, the resident’s sister responded to the stage 1 complaint. She said the landlord had provided 2 moving dates which had been cancelled at short notice, leaving the resident packing and living out of boxes whilst extremely stressed. She claimed that both removal companies had not been appropriately informed of the scale of the task, and so it took until 9pm to complete the move on the second day, even with family help.
The resident’s sister stated that the resident had viewed the property on 23 November 2021 and raised concerns about the condition of the boiler, but no member of landlord staff had accompanied her on this viewing to pick these up directly. She said the landlord had not considered the events of January 2022, or the continuous adverse impacts on the resident’s health and mental heath that the whole situation had caused. She said the resident had missed medical and therapy appointments, social and family engagements (including Christmas) and suffered gastric episodes due to being unable to feed herself in accordance with her medically prescribed diet.
She expressed dissatisfaction that the work to the electric sockets was still outstanding as one socket required a full rewire and another was behind a wardrobe that could not be moved. She also claimed that the back stairs to the property were unlit which was unsafe for the resident, and that the front and back doors were very old and not suitably robust considering the family’s previous experiences of stalking, harassment and domestic abuse. She asked for the property to be made secure.
On 17 March 2022, the landlord confirmed with the resident’s sister that she wished to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its process.
On 14 April 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said that:
1. It acknowledged that the resident’s move was handled poorly and had revealed significant failings in its void property management process and apologised for the distress these had caused.
2. It had arranged for an inspection of the light by the back stairs and the faulty sockets and these had now been repaired.
3. The doors to the property were standard doors and would normally be considered secure and fit for purpose. However, it acknowledged her concerns, had arranged for both doors to be replaced and a contractor had already attended to measure up for this.
4. It was fully upholding the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s move

In her formal complaint, the resident’s sister expressed dissatisfaction at the resident being given only 10 days’ notice to move into the new property. The landlord’s assertion that this time frame was due to the urgency with which the resident required the move was reasonable. The resident had approached the local authority regarding emergency housing earlier in December 2021, due to concerns around her daughter’s safety in the previous property, and these concerns were still in place at the time of the move.
The landlord appropriately recognised the resident’s vulnerabilities and arranged for a removal company to carry out the move, including packing. In its stage 1 complaint response, it offered an appropriate apology for the fact that it had not communicated the extent of the packing that was required to the first removal company – leading to them being unable to complete the move.
The landlord was able to source a second removal company to complete the move the following day. This appropriately minimised the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in what would have already been a high stress situation.
However, the landlord failed to make any offer of redress, to accompany its apology, for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in her move being delayed. This would have been appropriate in line with its compensation policy, which allows such payments where failures in service delivery have caused the resident inconvenience.

Condition of the property when let

The landlord’s voids and lettings procedure states that its ‘voids surveyor’ will carry out initial checks when a property becomes empty, including identifying the age of the boiler (with all boilers over 14 years old to be replaced). Although this Service has not seen any evidence as to the age of the original boiler, the fact that the resident’s sister claimed that the resident raised concerns about its condition after viewing the property, evidences that there was visible cause for such concern during the void period.
The landlord not only failed to act upon the resident’s concerns, but its internal correspondence revealed that it had failed to pick up on the fact that no ‘live test’ of the boiler had been carried out by its contractor during the void period. This was a missed opportunity to identify both the requirement to replace the boiler, and the leaks on the radiators in the property which could have prevented the future issues leading to the resident being decanted.
The resident stated that the landlord also failed to provide a member of staff to accompany her on the viewing (as its voids and lettings procedure states that it will). Had a member of landlord staff been present to witness the resident’s concerns first hand, this would have increased the likelihood of the landlord following them up and the issue being addressed prior to the resident’s tenancy beginning.
The resident also identified two electrical sockets within the property which were not functioning. As its contractor had undertaken a full rewire of the property, and issued an electrical certificate for this, this fault could not have been reasonably foreseen by the landlord and could be reasonably categorised as a ‘snagging issue’ as per its stage 1 complaint response.
Although it took the landlord several months to complete remedial repairs to these sockets, this was partly due to access being obstructed by the resident’s belongings, and as electrical supply to the rest of the property was not affected, the detriment experienced by the resident was limited.
In her request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process, the resident’s sister raised concerns about the security of the front and rear entry doors to the property and the faulty external light by the rear stairs.
Although the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response stated that it had considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and circumstances throughout, it did not appear to have appropriately done so in assessing the security of the doors during the void survey. Although the existing doors may have met its lettable standard, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged the resident’s concerns that they were not robust enough when given consideration of the previous threats the family had reported facing – part of which formed the grounds of the managed move.
The landlord reasonably agreed to replace both the back and front doors, and these works were completed in August 2022. This was a reasonable period of time from the stage 2 complaint response being issued considering lead times on the manufacture of external doors.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also confirmed that the repair to the faulty external light had been completed. This was carried out within a month of the landlord being notified of the fault, which was a reasonable timescale.

Landlord’s response to boiler breakdowns.

Once the gas was uncapped, and requirement to replace the boiler identified by its contractor, the landlord acted with appropriate speed and the installation of a new boiler was carried out 6 days later. This was a reasonable period of time considering the scale of the works.
However, the landlord did not book the resident and her daughter into a hotel until 20 December 2021, by which point they had been residing in the property for 4 days during the winter with no hot water and reliant on electric heaters. Although this is mitigated by the fact that gas uncapping was arranged for a Saturday – with landlord staff not in work until the Monday, the out of hours helpline was available and could have assisted earlier, had the resident been appropriately signposted by the contractor.
Once the boiler installation was completed, the landlord appropriately arranged a post inspection and also had a quality check carried out by a second contractor. Based on this, it was reasonable for the landlord to believe that the issues were resolved and the resident was able to return to the property once her hotel stay ended on 12 January 2022.
When the new boiler ceased working on 21 January 2022, the landlord appropriately arranged for its contractor to attend the same day and got the boiler running again. Although the boiler broke down again a short while later, there is no evidence this could have been reasonably foreseen by the contractor after their initial repair had been completed.
It was unfortunate that, as with the initial gas uncapping, this incident occurred over the weekend which inhibited the landlord’s capacity to respond and placed reliance on its out of hours helpline. The helpline failed to make an appropriate offer of hotel accommodation on 22 January 2022, which led to the resident approaching the hotel directly the following day. The resident then had to endure what her sister later described as a “humiliating wait” after hotel staff liaised with the out of hours service on her behalf. This caused additional detriment to the resident, who had already been caused distress and inconvenience by being without a working boiler since the day before.
On 24 January 2022, when the boiler failed again, the resident again had to contact the out of hours helpline and be booked into the hotel. The resident was advised by the landlord that her booking had been extended, however on returning to the hotel on 25 January 2022 she was informed by hotel staff that they had no booking for her. This necessitated a further call to the out-of-hours helpline and an hour and a half wait before the resident’s booking was confirmed.
Although communications between the landlord and the hotel indicate shared culpability for this failing, the landlord holds a responsibility towards the resident which the hotel does not and should have ensured the necessary arrangements were in place for such a sensitive case where a vulnerable resident had already been severely inconvenienced.
Between 25 January 2022 and 31 January 2022, the landlord carried out appropriate investigations and identified leaks in the heating system which were sealed. The landlord appropriately decided to keep the resident in the hotel until it was confident that all issues had been resolved and there would not be further boiler failures.
The resident’s sister’s escalation request described the detriment that the disruption during the period of complaint had upon the resident. This included her struggling to feed herself in accordance with her medically prescribed diet, being unable to attend medical, therapy and job centre appointments, missing family and social occasions – including Christmas and birthdays and being unable to fulfil the duties of her volunteering work. The impact in this case was clearly high and exacerbated by the resident’s mental and physical health conditions.
Although the landlord’s stage two complaint response offered an apology for the “obvious distress caused”, it did not demonstrate a full appreciation of the impact on the resident. Nor did it make a reasonable offer of redress for the distress and inconvenience caused over such a prolonged period – despite it admitting its failings and that it had ‘let her down’. The landlord’s stage one response also failed in this regard, making only an offer of £195 compensation towards the costs of running electric heaters.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to make awards to “recognise inconvenience caused to residents” and states that a customer’s vulnerabilities will be taken into consideration when assessing the level of inconvenience experienced. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles also encourage landlords to consider financial compensation when actions alone cannot restore a resident to the position they would have been in had any failures not occurred.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the condition of the property when let to the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to boiler breakdowns.

Reasons

The landlord failed to appropriately communicate with the removal company as to the scale of the task, causing the move to be delayed and the vulnerable resident to experience distress and inconvenience. Although an appropriate apology was made for this, there was no reasonable offer of redress.
The landlord and its contractor failed to appropriately survey the boiler and heating system during the void period, or respond to the resident’s concerns about the boiler’s condition following her viewing. This led to the property being let to her without a functioning installation for heating and hot water. The landlord again offered an appropriate apology but no redress for the failing.
Although the landlord carried out works to install the new boiler and remedy further faults within a timely manner, it delayed in arranging the initial decant, and the poor administration of further decants, by both the landlord and its out of hours helpline, caused the resident undue distress and inconvenience in addition to the ongoing upheaval.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £770 comprised of:
  1. The £195 offered at stage 1 of its complaints process (if not already paid).
  2. £75 for its service failure in the handling of her move.
  3. £300 for its maladministration in the condition of the property when let.
  4. £200 for its maladministration in its response to the boiler breakdowns.
2. Write to the resident apologising for the maladministration in its handling of her decant to the hotel from 21 January 2022 onwards.
3. Remind relevant staff of the requirement to check the age of boilers in its void properties, and arrange replacement of those over 14 years old, as per its voids and lettings procedure.
4. Take steps to ensure its contractors are aware of its out of hours help line and signpost residents to it appropriately in relevant cases.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within the timescale set out above.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its processes around management moves for domestic abuse survivors, to ensure that allocated properties have appropriate security – which may be above and beyond that of its usual lettable standard.
The landlord should advise this Service how it intends to act upon this recommendation within 4 weeks of the date of this report.