Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202510730)

Background

1. The resident’s complaint is about how the landlord handled her kitchen renewal, including the quality of work and delays. She also said the landlord retracted its offer to provide bespoke items and temporary accommodation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Works to renew the resident’s kitchen.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of works to renew the resident’s kitchen.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of kitchen works

4. The landlord accommodated some of the resident’s preferences in the kitchen design. It also took some responsibility for issues that arose during the kitchen works. However, it failed to renew the kitchen on schedule and to standard. It put undue emphasis on the resident’s actions rather than its own shortcomings regarding costs and delays.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord delayed logging the complaint at stage 1 which lengthened the complaints process. This was a shortcoming. However, it responded to the complaint within the appropriate timescales at both stages.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not investigated

6. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of repairs to other areas of her home, and about the conduct of an officer involved in the kitchen works. These are separate complaints, outside the scope of this investigation. Similarly, we are unable to investigate the landlord’s handling of works to the kitchen prior to May 2024. We have already considered its actions up to this time, as part of a complaint the resident previously brought to us under case reference 202303698.

What we have investigated

7. This investigation is focussed on the landlord’s handling of the kitchen works from May 2024. The landlord proposed a full kitchen renewal following its inspection on 6 August 2024. It did not start works for another 4 months. Records suggest the resident was unsure about whether to proceed with the works and wanted to consider design options. The landlord also agreed to replace the kitchen window first, which it did in November 2024. On this basis, there is no evidence the landlord delayed unnecessarily.
8. The resident was unhappy the landlord refused to widen the kitchen entrance. She said this affected her ability to fit standard sized appliances. She said it had reduced the entrance following works in 2017 so considered it reasonable for it to rectify this. We understand the resident’s frustration but cannot comment on the circumstances of the landlord’s historical actions.
9. The landlord provided a reasonable explanation of why it was not proportionate to complete structural work, considering its resources. Under the terms of tenancy, the landlord is responsible for installations for gas and electricity supply, but it is not required to provide a cooker and other white goods. It acted fairly by offering an integrated cooker and hob on a discretionary basis as a gesture and solution. The landlord was also accommodating in offering bespoke items, including laminate flooring, upgraded units, and lighting.
10. During works, the resident said operatives made exploratory holes in the wall by the entrance, despite being aware the wall was load bearing. It is not clear why the landlord or contractor did this given it had outlined its position following the August 2024 inspection. The resident remains unhappy with the attempts to patch the holes and said the work is unfinished. She raised this in her complaint but the landlord did not respond on this point which was a failing. The landlord should include this in an overall inspection and schedule of works, as per our above order.
11. The landlord did not complete the works by the scheduled deadline of 19 December 2024, to the frustration of the resident. Correspondence between the resident and landlord shows she raised issues about workmanship, changes to the design plan, and contractors not using protective coverings. She said it was not updating her on the schedule and was not effectively overseeing the work. The landlord’s surveyor acknowledged her concerns but said contractors were finding it difficult to work under the level of supervision she was providing and this was delaying progress. It explained it had needed to adapt the design after discovering unforeseen issues during works.
12. Regardless of the resident’s involvement and unforeseen issues, the contractor did not complete works to a decent standard or within timescale. The landlord accepted some of the workmanship was poor and said her preferences on the unit height had not been communicated to the contractor. It also recognised it had not had proper oversight and acknowledged issues in planning.
13. The resident was unhappy the landlord had not offered temporary accommodation over the Christmas period. She said the surveyor told her it would do so if the works exceeded 10 days. We do not have a record of this, but do not dispute the resident’s understanding and note the landlord did not deny saying this. In its correspondence with her on 23 December 2024, it explained that, due to escalating costs, it had not approved temporary accommodation. The landlord should avoid unduly raising expectations.
14. The landlord’s decants policy says it will consider temporary accommodation where it cannot carry out essential repairs while occupants remain in the property. Typically, it is offered when the property poses a health and safety risk that cannot be mitigated or is uninhabitable, but the landlord will also consider vulnerability. On Christmas Day, the resident said she had medical conditions and that these were worsening due to ongoing works.
15. We understand a landlord has finite resources and must manage these prudently. It is not clear that the property was uninhabitable, but it was understandably distressing for the resident to be without a functioning kitchen during the Christmas period. We do not know to what extent the landlord considered the impact on her health and wellbeing when assessing her request for alternative accommodation during this period. However, the surveyor arranged to inspect the property several days later which was reasonable. The landlord also changed its position and offered a temporary move on 6 January 2025, which was fair. The resident declined this.
16. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had offered temporary accommodation 3 times and, had she accepted, this would have minimised disruption. The resident said it only offered accommodation on the one occasion in January 2025. She refutes it offered accommodation on other occasions and asked it to prove this. We have not seen evidence of further offers. Its claim caused the resident frustration as she considered it inaccurate. It was a failing it did not respond to her and evidence its position.
17. The records suggest the landlord halted work in January 2025. The relationship between the contractors and resident had deteriorated. It met with all parties on 30 January 2025 and 4 February 2025 and devised a schedule of works with an improved plan for oversight and communication going forward. The landlord acted reasonably by assessing the situation and outlining sensible steps to resolve issues and progress the works.
18. Further issues arose in February 2025 which stalled progress. The resident’s choice of sink would not fit, and changes were needed to the extractor and wall units as they did not meet regulations. The landlord proposed a new sink choice on 12 February 2025 and she declined this on 14 February 2025. In its communication, the landlord said the resident was frustrating the process by retracting agreement on the specification. However, she was prompt in expressing her concerns about the sink.
19. Ultimately the landlord was responsible for delays resulting from issues in its kitchen plan. It should have identified the sink was incompatible and factored in the regulations around gas safety when planning the positioning of the extractor and units.
20. The landlord scheduled works on 18 and 19 February 2025 but the records suggest the resident cancelled these on 17 February 2025 due to ill health. She also cancelled the follow up works on 18 and 19 March 2025 due to ill health. In its internal communication the landlord said it had contractors on stand-by and last-minute cancellations frustrated the process and increased costs. The resident is not responsible for retracting availability based on her health, but neither was the landlord responsible for delays based on this.
21. In its email communication with the resident on 12 February 2025, the landlord highlighted the terms of tenancy and its repairs policy which says tenants must allow reasonable access for it to complete repairs. This was before the resident had cancelled based on ill health. She noted she had only prevented access on 27 December 2024 due to concerns with the works and pending an inspection from the landlord.
22. The landlord followed up with a letter from its legal department on 3 March 2025 requesting that she contact it to arrange access. In the meantime, the resident had proposed a new sink choice and extractor fan which she had communicated to the landlord on 17, 19, and 27 February 2025, and 9 March 2025 but the landlord did not respond. She understood the landlord needed to approve these choices before progressing the works. It was unreasonable and hasty of the landlord to send a legal letter when it had not responded to her.
23. In mid-March 2025 the landlord confirmed the resident’s choice of extractor but refused her new sink choice due to cost. It offered a standard sink or £100 towards an alternative. The landlord acknowledged it had originally agreed to a bespoke sink worth £300 but this was incompatible and the project was significantly over budget. The resident wanted a similar style and value and considered the change unfair, refusing the standard sink. This delayed progress. While the contractor was able to progress some works at the end of March 2025 it could not install the sink or complete tiling. While the landlord had to be mindful of costs, it was unreasonable that it retracted an offer it had already made. This caused the resident frustration and undermined the landlord and tenant relationship.
24. The landlord also refused to provide a metal carousel and re-route radiator pipes under the floor, which the resident said it had agreed to verbally. There are no records of this, but we do not dispute her account. Again, the landlord should avoid over-promising and raising expectations it cannot meet.
25. In its final response the landlord accepted it had paused works due to issues with the quality of work. However, it also attributed delays to the resident disputing the previously agreed scope of works and repeatedly preventing access. We agree the works were delayed partly because the resident rejected the landlord’s choice of sink and due to her ill health. However, the scope of works changed due to unforeseen issues, poor planning on the landlord’s part, and its attempts to minimise costs. This caused delays which were not the resident’s fault.
26. As part of her complaint, the resident raised concerns about workmanship, including damage to her laminate floor, claims that walls were re-plastered 4 times, and repositioning of wall units. While the landlord accepted there were issues, it did not address these specific concerns or fully recognise the impact of wasted resources and delays in terms of escalating costs.
27. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen renewal. The records show the landlord tried to accommodate the resident’s preferences and inspected the property when issues arose. It explained its position in relation to the resident’s request for specific items and tried to move the works forward. However, it put undue emphasis on the resident’s actions rather than its own shortcomings regarding cost and delays. This was unreasonable and contributed to a breakdown in the landlord-tenant relationship, further impeding progress.
28. The landlord offered £450 compensation for poor workmanship and the impact of being without a fully functional kitchen. The resident experienced significant distress and inconvenience due to the prolonged timeline. This was worsened by the landlord’s response, which downplayed its responsibility and emphasised the resident’s. For this reason, the landlord should offer additional compensation and apologise. A total offer of £650 is considered reasonable, inclusive of the £450 it has already offered. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance and its compensation policy.

29. On 15 January 2025, the resident told the landlord she wanted to complain about its handling of “major works” in her home. The landlord responded on 20 January 2025 to clarify what works she was referring to, as her home was not listed under its major works programme. She responded on the same day and confirmed the complaint was about the kitchen works. The landlord’s initial delay in logging the complaint was understandable as it sought clarity.
30. On 23 January 2025, the landlord said it could not log a new complaint because the kitchen works related to an outstanding order from a previous investigation. This referred to the complaint we investigated in May 2024, where we ordered the landlord to inspect the property and provide a snagging schedule. The landlord’s decision to offer a kitchen renewal went beyond the parameters of that investigation. The resident’s complaint concerned new issues with recent work so it was appropriate to log a new complaint. The landlord did so on 3 February 2025, after another request from the resident on 30 January 2025.
31. The landlord should have logged the complaint within 5 working days of the resident’s email on 20 January 2025, when she clarified the nature of her complaint. This is the timescale required under the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Because it did not, the resident experienced additional time and trouble pursuing the complaint and it lengthened the process which caused her inconvenience. Overall, it took 10 working days for it to log the complaint.
32. However, the situation was complicated as the work was linked to a previous complaint and the delay was short. Once logged, the landlord responded within 10 working days at stage 1. After the resident escalated on 9 March 2025, it responded at stage 2 within 18 working days. Its responses were within the timescales in its complaints policy and the Code.
33. While recognising the landlord delayed logging the complaint at stage 1, the delay and inconvenience were minimal. As such, we have found no maladministration.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The resident referred to verbal conversations in which the landlord promised bespoke items or interventions, of which there was no written record. On occasion, this made it difficult to assess whether the landlord’s subsequent actions were fair. We have recommended that it keeps written records of any discussions with residents to provide an audit trail.

Communication

35. The landlord was in regular communication with the resident throughout the period under investigation, but by its own admission it did not keep her sufficiently updated during initial works in December 2024. It also failed to respond to several emails with her choice of sink and extractor.