Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202233268)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233268

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

19 December 2024

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 landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s windows.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. She lives in a 2-bedroomed ground floor flat (the property). The landlord’s records note that the resident has physical and mental health vulnerabilities
On 28 April 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that the second bedroom’s window was broken, and the living room window could not be opened. She suggested “this could be (the) cause of the mould”. The landlord inspected the windows on 16 May 2021 and raised repair work on 2 June 2021.
The resident chased the repairs with the landlord on 11 November 2021, and on 3 December 2021 she reported that all the windows in the property needed repairs. The landlord inspected the property again on 20 December 2021 and noted that a follow up surveyor’s inspection was needed.
On 23 February 2022 the resident chased the landlord for a surveyor’s inspection as the mould in the property was worsening. The landlord inspected the property on 23 March 2022 and raised work to overhaul all the windows in the property, repair and treat areas affected by mould, and redecorate. The repairs did not go ahead, and the landlord inspected the property again on 22 December 2022. The report from this noted that permission would be needed to replace the windows as “most of them cannot be fix(ed)”.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 2 February 2023. She said she had been reporting issues with the windows since 2017 and, despite several inspections, the landlord had refused to replace the windows. The resident highlighted that she had physical and mental vulnerabilities and said the damp and mould was affecting her and her family’s health. She said the damp and mould had damaged her possessions and she had not been able to use the second bedroom for 2 years.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 16 February 2023. It said that the outcome of the inspections of the resident’s windows indicated that significant work was needed as they were contributing to the mould within the property. It acknowledged that a contractor had quoted for replacement of the windows in December 2021, however, it considered this was not good value. The landlord said that it inspected again in March 2022 and raised repairs to replace 1 window and overhaul the rest. It would also overhaul the back door, treat the areas affected by mould, repair damaged plaster, decorate the treated areas, and replace the bathroom extractor fan.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident had disputed whether repairs, instead of replacement, were sufficient, and she had been given conflicting information about this from its contractors and repairs staff. It also noted that she disputed that its contractor had tried to arrange repair appointments with her. The landlord confirmed that repairs were sufficient as all the windows and external doors were to be replaced as part of a major works programme scheduled for 2025. It said it would pass her contact details to its contractors to arrange appointments.
The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 17 February 2023. She repeated that she was still unhappy with the involvement of the previously mentioned staff member. The resident said that she was in financial difficulty due to high heating bills and damage to her possessions from mould. She questioned the value of carrying out window repairs when they would be replaced soon, and she asked what the landlord would do to protect her household’s health.
On 16 March 2023 the landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident. It acknowledged her reports of higher heating costs, damage to her possessions, and the effect on her household’s health. The landlord confirmed that the windows could be viably repaired, and it was cost-effective to do so, as it could “achieve significant financial savings” by replacing them as part of a major works programme.
The landlord said it wanted to complete the repairs “without any further delay” and noted that its contractor had already visited to measure for the replacement window. It said it would monitor the repairs on a weekly basis until they were completed and then carry out a post-inspection. The landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in doing the repairs and its communication had been inadequate. To recognise this, it offered the resident compensation of £200.
The landlord completed all the proposed repairs on 31 July 2023. On 30 April 2024 the resident told the Ombudsman that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint as the windows were in a poor condition, her family’s health had been affected, and she was in financial difficulty from increased heating bills and damaged possessions. To resolve her complaint, the resident wanted compensation, the repairs to be completed, and to be rehoused.
On 24 September 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that the damp and mould had returned. It carried out a damp inspection on 9 October 2024 and raised follow-up work.

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states that we may not investigate complaints which were not made to the landlord within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 12 months of the issues arising.
The resident said that she had issues with her windows since 2017. In line with paragraph 42.c. above, the Ombudsman would generally only consider the events preceding the complaint by 12 months, which would be from February 2022 onwards in this case. This is because the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with the landlord within 12 months of the matters occurring so that complaints can be reliably investigated. As the issues become historic it can be more difficult to assess what happened due to a lack of available evidence. However, we have used discretion to consider events from April 2021 onwards as this is when the resident re-started reporting the window repairs to the landlord regularly.
Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
The resident said that the damp and mould associated with her window repairs led to health issues for herself and her household. While the Ombudsman does not doubt this, it is outside of our remit to draw a direct link between the landlord’s actions or lack of action and any effect on the resident’s household’s health. In line with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, this is a matter more suited to a personal injury claim to court or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a claim.
We will, however, consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of household vulnerabilities and ill-health. The Ombudsman recognises that some residents’ circumstances mean that they may be more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability. Where the landlord has made an error, consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s mental or physical health condition) could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
The resident wanted to be rehoused as part of the resolution of her complaint. This is generally not an outcome that the Ombudsman can order. This is because we do not have access to the list of the landlord’s available properties, nor knowledge of other residents who may be higher priority for a move. In general, the highest priority is given to those who are homeless or who are fleeing domestic violence.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s repairs policy provides for 5 repair priority categories, critical, emergency, urgent, routine, and planned. These have response times ranging between 4 hours, when there is a serious safety hazard, and 90 days for planned or major works. The policy provides for routine repairs to be completed within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider paying compensation when “failures in service delivery have caused residents’ loss or major inconvenience”. It goes on to confirm that liability insurance claims for loss or damage to possessions must be made to its insurance team.
The resident disputed whether the landlord’s proposal to replace only 1 window and repair the rest, instead of replacing them all, was reasonable. The evidence showed that the landlord and its contractors had differing stances on whether to replace the windows and the resident’s correspondence showed that she was aware of this. Social landlords have a duty to manage their finite resources to maximise the benefit to all residents. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to first attempt to repair rather than replace the resident’s windows. If a repair was attempted and then proved to be ineffective, then the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider replacement.
Given that the landlord planned a major works programme to replace all windows and external doors in 2025, it was reasonable for it to explain that repairs to the windows were sufficient in the meantime. Its decision to replace the second bedroom’s window showed that it paid due to regard to the suitability of the proposed repairs and was not dismissive of the specifics of the repair. It was also reasonable for it to explain that immediately replacing her windows was not currently good value as it could do this more cost-effectively as part of major works.
The resident reported further issues with damp and mould in her property on 26 September 2024, approximately 1 year after the repairs set out in the final complaint response were completed. This was not necessarily evidence of a failure by the landlord to do satisfactory repairs the first time around. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified staff concerning what repairs were required. Both the landlord’s staff and contractors, and the resident herself, connected the damp and mould issues to the windows. It was therefore reasonable for it to focus on repairing these as a first step to resolving the mould. As there were no further reports of damp and mould in the months following the repairs, the landlord was entitled to assume the repairs had resolved the issue until it was reported again.
When the resident made her further reports of damp and mould in September 2024, the landlord acted appropriately to raise inspections to assess the ventilation and the heat retention in the property. This was in line with the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould “Its not lifestyle”, available to view on our website. This recommends that landlord take a proactive zero tolerance approach to resolving the root cause of damp and mould in a property.
While the landlord carried out appropriate repairs to address the resident’s report of faulty windows and associated damp and mould, it delayed unreasonably in starting the work. Prior to her complaint, there were significant delays in starting the window repairs which the landlord did not fully acknowledge in its complaint responses. It did not acknowledge these delays:
1. Following the landlord’s inspection on 28 April 2021, it raised repair work on 2 June 2021. Its records show that it did not start the repairs as they were awaiting internal approval. The landlord did not progress the repair until the resident chased it for an update on 11 November 2021.
2. The landlord inspected the property again on 20 December 2021 and noted that a surveyor’s inspection was required. It did not do this until 23 March 2022, and this was prompted by the resident chasing it for an update on 23 February 2022. This was another unreasonable delay.
3. Following the inspection on 23 March 2022, the landlord raised repair work, but again this did not go ahead. This led to the resident chasing the landlord another 4 times and asking her local councillor to intervene, before it inspected yet again in September 2022.
The above events show that there was a total of 17 months’ delay in progressing the window repairs between April 2021 and September 2022. The evidence showed that when the landlord inspected again in September 2022, the repairs stalled as the resident disputed the proposed work. On 4 November 2022 the resident, confirmed that she wanted the repairs to go ahead. However, when the landlord’s contractor then attended on 20 December 2022, it did not do the repairs and requested the landlord’s approval to replace the windows. No repair work was done, which prompted the resident’s complaint on 2 February 2023.
The landlord’s internal records showed that there was mismanagement of the repairs. On 2 June 2021, 23 March 2022, and 20 December 2022, the landlord and its contractor raised repairs which were not done as internal approval was not given. Nothing was done until the resident chased the landlord. This was inappropriate, given that its inspections noted that the windows may be contributing to the mould in the property. The landlord should have prioritised the repairs since it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. It failed to pay due regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities and her concerns about the effect of the mould on her children’s health.
There was also poor communication from the landlord to resident on the scope of the repairs. It was evident that she was given conflicting information from the landlord and its contractors on whether the windows required replacing. While the landlord’s complaint responses reasonably explained why window repairs were sufficient for the time being, there was no prior evidence of it explaining why it would not replace the windows. Its communication with the resident was poor and it failed to manage her expectations.
The landlord’s complaint responses also failed to respond to all the concerns the resident raised. It did not respond adequately to the following issues:
1. The resident reported that she had paid excessively high heating bills due to the condition of the windows.
2. She said that the mould had affected her and her family’s health.
3. The resident reported that the mould had caused damage to her possessions which she had needed to replace.
It was unreasonable that the landlord did not address the above issues. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which all members of the Scheme must comply with, states that a landlord must respond to all the issues raised in a resident’s complaint. The landlord did ask the resident, on 15 March 2023 for evidence of the effect of the damp and mould on her health. She had replied that the landlord would need to pay for her to get these records from her GP. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this in its final complaint response and set out its position on the matter.
In its final response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports of damage to her belongings and excess energy costs but did not address this in its response. It should have considered whether its actions had led to physical or financial detriment for the resident’s household, particularly since it was aware of her pre-existing vulnerabilities. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide its insurance details to the resident and assist her with making a liability insurance claim, as set out in its compensation policy.
The landlord should also have responded, in its complaint responses, to her concerns about high heating bills. While the landlord did raise work for a heat-loss survey, this was in October 2024, in response to her reporting the damp and mould had returned. This potentially left the resident in financial detriment for an extended time. In its complaint responses it should have considered if its failures in doing the window repairs had led to financial loss for the resident. It was unreasonable that it did not do so.
The landlord, in its final response, acknowledged that it had delayed in progressing the work and had not communicated effectively with the resident. It offered £200 compensation for this, without specifying the period over which it was paying compensation for. The landlord’s significant delays and poor communication led to time and trouble for the resident in chasing updates. It also caused her distress and inconvenience for more than 2 years between her first report on 28 April 2021 and it completing the work on 31 July 2023. The compensation the landlord offered was not proportionate to the extent of its failings.
The landlord’s failings overall amount to severe maladministration. To recognise the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident because of the landlord’s failings, it must pay her compensation of £1,738. This is for the period between April 2021, when the landlord was on notice of the window repairs, and July 2023, when the repairs were completed. During the same period the resident paid approximately £17,382.42 in rent. We have based compensation for distress and inconvenience on 10% of the rent charged.
The compensation award above is inclusive of the £200 the landlord already offered the resident, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid. The award is in line with our remedies guidance, available to view online. This provides for awards of compensation of over £1,000 when the landlord repeatedly failed to provide the same service, which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. It also did not fully put things right or learn from outcomes.
In light of the excessively long time the landlord took to complete the repairs, its poor management of the repairs, and its absence of learning from the complaint, a learning order will be made under paragraph 54.g. of the Scheme as set out below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s windows.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 5 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the following orders:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this investigation. The apology must come from a senior member of staff at director level or above and be compliant with the guidance for apologies in our remedies guidance.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,738 for its failures in the handling of the window repairs. It may deduct the £200 compensation it already offered the resident if it can evidence that it has already paid this.
3. Contact the resident to seek evidence of:
  1. Her report of damage to her possessions. If appropriate, it must assist her with making a liability insurance claim to its insurer.
  2. Her reports of higher heating bills. If there is evidence that the faulty windows led to excessive energy costs, then it should compensate her accordingly. The landlord should write to the resident and explain if it will compensate her or not, including the reasons for its decision.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within 13 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the following learning order:
1. The landlord must have carried out a comprehensive review of its practices in handling repairs. The review must be led by a senior manager and must include, but not be limited to:
  1. Consideration of the findings of this report, including the excessive delays, poor management of repairs, and poor communication.
  2. Identification of other outstanding window related repairs reports the landlord received over the last 12 months which may be delayed for the same reasons identified.
  3. Consideration of its communication with residents and contractors when its view differs from its contractors.
  4. Consideration of the steps it needs to take to ensure that staff correctly implement changes to address the failings identified.
2. The landlord must provide us with a report which sets out:
  1. Its findings and learning from each part of the learning order set out above.
  2. Its plan for changes to its policies and practices in response to the findings it has made to prevent similar complaints in future. The plan should include the specific actions it will take and the timescales for completing them.