Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202218966)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218966

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

18 July 2023 (amended at review – 11 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs and replacement of multiple windows in the resident’s property.
    2. The associated complaint

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord at the property.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 and 17 October 2021, requesting an update on its planned works to the windows in the property, and asking for her concerns to be formally logged. She told the landlord she had previously been informed these were due to start in October 2021. She said she had been raising concerns about the state of the property since 2018. She also said that it had not undergone any cyclical works in 20 years and as a result, her windows were rotten. The resident said she had made numerous calls to the landlord, reporting that her windows were rotten and needed replacing. She said the state of the windows was impacting her health because the cold weather allowing the elements to enter the property via the rotten windows.
  3. The landlord did not raise a formal complaint in response to either of the resident’s reports of 8 or 17 October 2021. Instead, the landlord logged these requests for repairs and provided the resident with details of separate departments/individuals who would be dealing with the repairs and major works respectively, asking the resident to contact them directly for updates.
  4. Following this, the resident attempted to correspond with various parties about the ongoing issues.
  5. The landlord sent an operative on 25 October 2021, to look at one of the windows at the property. This contractor replaced 600mm of the windowsill, sealed around the bottom of the window, which would not open. They then cemented underneath the window, to seal water leaks. On 27 October 2021, an operative attended and inspected all of the windows. They stated the landlord needed to send a joiner to carry out the repairs. This contractor identified the following:
    1. Six sash windows needed draught excluders to be fitted.
    2. One sash window needed the sash cord to be replaced.
    3. The triple sash window needed to be replaced as it was beyond economic repair.
  6. The resident raised a further complaint to the landlord on 7 November 2021. She had telephoned the landlord 12 times to inform it, that the operative sent to her property was unable to carry out the repairs to her window. This was because the works required a joiner. On 12 November, the landlord sent the same operative, who submitted the same report, requesting the landlord send a joiner to the property. On 15 November 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
  7. The landlord’s stage one complaint response provided inaccurate information. It had said that on 25 October 2021 it had carried out scraping and painting to a window that it had not in fact done. The landlord provided an apology that it had delayed contacting its contractors about the outstanding window repairs. The resident remained dissatisfied and said the landlord was ignoring her. She was also unhappy that the landlord was planning to carry out the repairs to her windows through its cyclical works. This would cause further delays. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint. She wanted a surveyor to assess the rotten windows again and a joiner to replace them.
  8. At the final stage of the landlord’s complaint process, provided on 22 December 2021, it accepted that it had not logged the resident’s previous reports about the window repairs. It apologised for failing to respond to her multiple communications by both phone and email. The landlord explained that it had chosen to carry out the window repairs through its cyclical works in order to minimise the cost on the resident, through her service charge. It was carrying out an extensive survey of the property in January 2022. It said it would respond to the resident after this. The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation for its delays in carrying out the window repairs.
  9. On 7 January 2022, the resident reported that the kitchen window frame was rotten and had come away from the glass. She explained that this was a health and safety risk. The resident said that this nearly caused an injury to her neighbour. This window was repaired but not replaced. The landlord replaced the living room window in May 2022. In December 2022, this same window subsequently had to be re-fitted as it was not configured correctly when it was fitted the first time.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaint. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 24 November 2022. Her desired outcome is for the kitchen window and the three living room windows to be replaced. She also requested £3000 compensation to take into consideration the following:
    1. Delays in replacing the rotten windows.
    2. Impact on her health, caused by the continued exposure to the cold.
    3. Increase costs in her energy bills due to the state of the windows.
  11. The resident also said she does not wish to incur costs through her service charge for the fitting of the window that had to be replaced twice.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Policy and Procedures

  1. The resident’s leasehold agreement states that the landlord will keep and maintain, and wherever necessary rebuild renew and replace all worn and damaged parts of the windows and window frames. It will paint the inside of the building every 7 years. From time to time during the terms of the leasehold agreement, the landlord will repair and maintain the glazing of the windows.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for the windows at the property. It has three types of repairs; responsive repairs, planned maintenance and adaptions. It describes a responsive repair as being remedial works to broken, damaged or defective parts of the fabric of the building. This also includes where it needs to carry out a ‘make safe’ repair. Its planned maintenance is its upkeep of its housing stock which includes its cyclical works.
  3. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. It aims to resolve complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two, it aims to resolve complaints within 20 working days. At both stages, a complainant should be kept informed where the landlord is unable to meet these timescales. The landlord should also provide an amended response timescale.

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident contributes towards the landlord’s costs, broadly maintenance, management, and repair, through annual service charges. The lease agreement shows the parties agree to comply with the provisions contained in the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) in respect of the charges.
  2. This service is not able to consider complaints concerning the level of a rent or service charge, as this falls outside the jurisdiction of this Service. The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) can establish whether service charges are reasonable or payable. The Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s communication in relation to the charges and whether it responded to any questions about the service charge appropriately in line with its legal obligations, its internal policies and industry best practice.

The repairs and replacement of multiple windows in the resident’s property.

  1.  It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange an inspection in response to the resident’s reports of the poor conditions of the windows at the property in October 2021. It was however, unreasonable for the landlord to send the same contractor again in November 2021 when they had already said they were not qualified to repair the windows, as this would need to be done by a joiner. There were two further visits in November 2021 when the windows were measured but no work was completed. The timeline shows that during this period, the resident telephoned the landlord 12 times to report that it had sent the wrong type of contractor to carry out her outstanding repairs to the windows. The resident had also waited 3 weeks to have a phone call with a planning supervisor.
  2. It was right that the landlord apologised in its complaint response for not updating its repairs team on time and for not logging all of the resident’s repair reports regarding the windows. This was at a time when the weather was entering the colder months. The Ombudsman can understand the resident’s frustration at this time. She described the poor conditions of the windows meant she was unable to sleep, due to the freezing cold rooms.
  3. The landlord told the resident in December 2021 that it would carry out the works to the windows at the property as part of its cyclical works. It was reasonable for the landlord to include the work in its cyclical repairs programme in order to manage costs which would ultimately be passed on to the resident through her service charge. However, this was subject to the repairs being carried out within a reasonable period of time. The landlord replaced one bedroom window in May 2022 and painted the other six windows at the property. It was not reasonable for the resident to wait seven months, through a cold winter, for this window to be replaced. It was then identified that this window was not fitted correctly and the resident was unable to securely lock it. The landlord carried out its inspection of the window on 31 May 2022. The landlord refitted this same bedroom window in December 2022. This was another seven months later. It was not acceptable, or reasonable that it took 14 months to properly replace the resident’s bedroom window. The detriment to the resident was that she stated she felt the cold draught due to the poor condition of the windows, which has impacted the health of her and her family over a prolonged period of time.
  4. Having reviewed the new evidence provided by the landlord at review stage, the landlord should be aware that the Ombudsman cannot make assessments of the effectiveness of repairs via photographs. The landlord did not provide any repair records, results of follow up inspections or further evidence to demonstrate that the work it conducted minimised potential heat loss in the property effectively. Further, it is noted note the repair of 25 October 2021 left the following jobs outstanding:
  1. Six sash windows needed draught excluders to be fitted.

 

  1. One sash window needed the sash cord to be replaced.

 

  1. The triple sash window needed to be replaced as it was beyond economic repair.
  1. The only evidence of repairs being undertaken thereafter was following the resident’s further report of 7 January 2022. The landlord has offered no further evidence of other repairs conducted following those of 25 October 2021, or to show that draught excluders were fitted as recommended. The landlord’s photographic evidence provided at review stage also does not show this work was done.
  2. I acknowledge the landlord’s statements about the action it took to further insulate the property via the roof. However, I do not agree this would have offset any issues with heat transference via the windows in the property. I note that as well as heat loss, the resident was also concerned about the lack of noise insulation. There is no evidence that the repairs conducted by the landlord would have helped this, or that it made any efforts to ensure noise transference was minimised.

 

 

  1. In its final complaint response, the landlord awarded the resident £250 compensation. It stated this was for the delays she incurred during the outstanding window repairs. The resident has stated to this service that four of the outstanding six repaired windows are still rotten, including the kitchen and living room windows, having never been replaced.
  2. For the reasons set out in this report, this service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs and replacement of multiple windows in the resident’s property. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our remedies guidance (published on our website) We have taken into consideration the distress, inconvenience, and time wasted as described by the resident. For this reason, we award the resident £600 including the £250 already offered by the landlord in its stage one response. An example of this type of compensation is where the resident has been adversely affected by the landlord’s errors but there may be no permanent impact. This also includes where a landlord has attempted to provide to put things right but where it has not provided a proportionate response to the detriment caused to the resident.
  3. It is also appropriate to award compensation to the resident in recognition of the likely increased energy usage for the time of the complaint from October 2021 to December 2022. In cases where it would be very difficult (if not impossible) to calculate the exact loss incurred by the resident; but where we are satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, a resident has incurred costs but has not been able to evidence this and it is not possible to provide a reasonable estimate; we may say that a landlord should pay an amount in recognition of the fact that the resident has incurred costs that would not have arisen had the maladministration not occurred. As such, in order to ‘put things right’ additional compensation will be awarded in recognition that the landlord failed to ensure the repairs it undertook minimised the heating loss and any additional noise transfer. This will be an additional £100 award.
  4. It is recognised that the resident and landlord dispute the condition of the windows that were not replaced. In the interest of fairness. The Ombudsman further orders the landlord to have an independent survey of all the windows at the resident’s property, including the windows which have not yet been replaced and those which the resident is unhappy with the standard of workmanship. This inspection report is to then be shared with the resident. Following the further inspection, the landlord is to include in its report to the resident, timescales for any repairs/replacement of the windows. It should then carry out the repairs within these timescales.

The associated complaint

  1. It was not reasonable for the landlord to fail to log the resident’s emails of 8 and 17 October as formal complaints. Had the landlord dealt with the correspondence of 8 and 17 October 2021 as expressions of dissatisfaction (and therefore a complaint) it could have provided a full response following its consultation with each involved party. That it referred the resident to follow-up themselves would have likely added to the time and trouble they needed to spend to resolve these issues. This action was also contrary to the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Principles, paragraph 4.1 of which outlines that landlords must: “…ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay”.
  2. As such, it is reasonable to award further compensation for the landlord’s failure to log the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction at that stage as complaints. This is because its failure to do so meant the resident had to expend further time and trouble following up with individual parties, which the landlord should have done as part of its investigation into the resident’s complaint (had it been logged as such as it should have been). £150 is awarded for the additional time and trouble expended by the resident due to the landlord’s failures in this regard.  
  3. Once it had acknowledged that the resident wished to make a formal complaint (in November 2021), the landlord acknowledged it needed an extra day to provide its stage one response to the resident. It was right that it kept the resident updated and this extra day would have had no significant detriment to the resident. However, in its response, the landlord provided information to the resident that it had carried out repairs to the windows, that it had not completed. The landlord also failed to acknowledge in its response that it had failed to respond to the resident’s initial reports, concerning the poor conditions of the windows. Providing inaccurate information to the resident would have caused her frustration and may not have given her confidence in the accuracy of the landlord’s response to the rest of her complaint.
  4. The landlord’s final response provided an apology for its delays and failing to acknowledge the resident’s concerns in its stage one response. This final response failed to provide the resident with a reasonable response as to when it would complete the repair to the windows. It did not sufficiently answer the resident’s complaint. The landlord replied on 2 February 2022 that it would not comment further on the complaint. Within the final response the landlord had stated it would do a survey in January 2022 and get back to the resident. The timeline and communication provided to this service, shows limited contact or updates with the resident. This was evidence of poor communication by the landlord. It should have provided the resident with a clear timescale to the repairs back in October 2021 which was when the resident first raised the repair of the windows. It should not have delayed a survey at the property until January 2021 when it had already sent a number of contractors to the property prior to this. It should have shared its approach with the resident and communicated throughout, providing relevant updates and explanations sooner about its response to the repair. For these reasons, this service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  5. This service has taken into consideration our remedies guidance as referenced above and awards the resident £250 for distress and inconvenience caused by errors in the landlord’s complaint handling. This has taken into account the adverse effect the complaint handling errors had on the resident. This also includes taking into consideration where the landlord has previously failed to provide a proportionate redress to the resident’s complaint in its final response.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs and replacement of multiple windows.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing within 28 days of this report. The apology is to be in line with this Service’s guidance that it acknowledges the maladministration in the handling of the repairs and replacement of multiple windows and expresses a sincere regret.
  2. The landlord is to pay the resident a compensation payment of £1100 within 28 days of this determination. The breakdown of this compensation is as follows:

 

  1. £600 for its handling of the repairs and replacement of multiple windows. This amount includes the £250 already offered in its final response dated 22 December 2021.

 

  1. £100 in recognition that the landlord did not take measures to ensure heat loss and noise transference were minimised during the time it was organising the major works project.

 

  1. £250 for its handling of the associated complaint.

 

  1. £150 for the time and trouble expended by the resident in trying to resolve this complaint following their emails to the landlord of 8 and 17 October 2021.

37. Within 28 days, the landlord is to complete an independent survey of all of the windows at the resident’s property. The landlord should draw up a schedule of works following the survey which is to be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman and is to include timescales for the outstanding repairs to be completed. The repairs must be completed within a reasonable time period, in line with the landlord’s published timescales.