Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202416374)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416374

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

17 July 2025


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 response to the resident’s concerns about the installation of CCTV on the estate.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a 1-bed flat in a building comprised of several rented and leasehold flats.
  2. The landlord sent out a letter of invitation to residents of the estate on 4 May 2023. It asked residents to participate in a consultation on the proposed installation of CCTV across the estate. It said this was in response to a recent increase in criminal activity on the estate. It said the cost of the works would be paid for from the Estate Improvement Budget (EIB) and that there would be no additional costs to residents. The deadline for response to the consultation was 8 June 2023.
  3. The landlord contacted all residents on 20 June 2023 in writing to confirm that a majority of respondents were in favour of the installation of CCTV. It said it would seek quotes for the cost of the work and inform residents of the amount that would be paid from the EIB.
  4. The landlord sent a further letter on 30 January 2024 to confirm that the works had been approved and would commence on 5 February 2024 for 8 weeks. It said the total cost to be deducted from the EIB was £80,888.
  5. The resident raised a complaint on 18 March 2024. She said she objected to the installation of CCTV on the estate and that the consultation process was flawed. She raised concerns about the fire risk of the PVC trunking that would be used for the wiring and asked for the works to be cancelled.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 18 April 2024. It said it held a consultation for residents and that the majority of respondents were in favour of the works. It said all materials used for the works were fire safe and offered to consult on using an alternative material with the residents in the block. The complaint was not upheld.
  7. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 14 May 2024. She said the landlord did not conduct a fair consultation as it did not provide enough detail about the proposed works. She refused the offer of an alternative trunking material and asked for a second consultation to be conducted for residents.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 5 June 2024. It said all works had been fire safety checked. It said its consultation was robust and that it would not be justifiable to conduct a further consultation. The complaint was not upheld.
  9. The resident escalated the complaint to the Service on 23 July 2024. She said the landlord had not provided evidence to confirm the safety of the PVC trunking. She said the cameras and trunking were intrusive and unsightly. She said the installation was based on a flawed consultation. She wanted the trunking and cameras removed and for the walls to be returned to their previous condition.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the installation of CCTV

  1. In the landlord’s Estate Improvement Works Guidance, it says it will consult with residents to demonstrate significant community support for any works which require use of the Estate Improvement Budget. It says if the response rate of a consultation is considered low or if the works are controversial, it may take additional steps to consult directly with residents such as setting up a stall on the estate.
  2. The guidance says the usual decision is to proceed with a project if the response rate targets are not met unless there is significant opposition. It says that if a complaint is raised about estate improvements, works will continue while the complaint is resolved provided a majority of residents are in favour of the improvements.
  3. In the landlord’s Contractor Fire Policy and Procedure it says that contractors must only use materials which have been approved as safe to use under British standards. It says all contractors must have suitable risk assessments for all tasks they undertake in the landlord’s properties.
  4. The landlord’s letter to residents showed the estate-wide response rate to the consultation was 29%. This was below the target response rate of 35% for projects costing over £50,000 that the landlord sets out in its guidance. The landlord could have considered conducting more community outreach work to gather feedback on the proposal as its policy says it will when a project may be controversial. It could have considered setting up a stall on the estate or meeting residents through a door-to-door campaign as its guidance suggests. This would have provided an opportunity to give more information about the works to residents and given the chance to build a stronger case for the works.
  5. The resident raised a formal complaint on 18 March 2024. She said that she, along with other residents in her block, did not want the CCTV that was in the process of being installed. She said the consultation was not clear as it did not mention the use of PVC trunking or give a clear picture of the size and appearance of the cameras.
  6. The resident also raised concerns about the fire risk presented by the PVC trunking that was being installed to house the CCTV cables. She was concerned that the material would give off toxic fumes in a fire and mentioned that the Grenfell disaster contributed to her worries. She was also unhappy with the aesthetic impact of the trunking in the property. She asked for all works to be cancelled and for the system to be removed.
  7. Following the initial complaint, emails were exchanged between the resident and landlord from 4 April 2024 to 8 April 2024 regarding the ongoing works. The resident said that she had assumed the work would be paused while her complaint was being investigated. The landlord said the works would continue as planned while the complaint was determined, which was reasonable and in line with its policies.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 18 April 2024. It said that the consultation was open for 5 weeks and that this was a fair window for residents to have their say on the proposal. It said that a majority of respondents in the resident’s block voted in favour of the works. It was satisfied that its approach to the consultation was robust.
  9. The landlord was clear about its approach to the works and its consultation but it failed to adequately respond to the resident’s concerns about the information provided in the original consultation letter. It said that, while the specific measurements of the equipment were not provided, residents had the opportunity to contact it for clarification during the consultation period. However, the original letter did not make this clear. The letter contained no clear invitation to contact the landlord for more information. The landlord could have taken steps to make the offer of a discussion around the project specifications clearer for residents. While not a failing, the invitation to speak to the landlord for more information about the specifications of the project was not made clear in the initial consultation invitation letter.
  10. The landlord said that the project was fully compliant with fire safety and designed for indoor use. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about toxic fumes in the event of a fire and offered to consult with her block on replacing the trunking with galvanized steel if she felt this would be a better alternative. The landlord demonstrated that it was listening to the resident’s concerns about safety and offered a reasonable alternative. It showed that it understood the sensitivity of her safety concerns.
  11. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 14 May 2024. She said the landlord had not accepted the flaws in its consultation process and repeated her concerns over the lack of information given about the cameras and trunking that were to be used. She said that previous estate works had been put to an additional consultation after the landlord agreed that the information provided in the first round was insufficient and may have impacted resident engagement. She noted that the second consultation had a minimum response rate of 70% set by the landlord following low engagement. She also said another block had already objected to the CCTV being installed and all works had been removed following a complaint from the residents there. The resident requested that the works were stopped and for a second consultation process to be carried out now that residents had seen the cameras being installed.
  12. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 5 June 2024. It said it had consulted its Fire Safety Operations Manager and explained that the PVC being used was of limited combustibility so would not readily catch fire. It was appropriate to provide additional reassurance around the safety of the materials being used and showed that it understood the importance of the resident’s concern.
  13. The resident said in her stage 2 escalation that she had asked for scientific evidence or independent reports to prove the safety of the PVC trunking. While the landlord gave a good summary of the findings of its fire safety inspections, it failed to acknowledge this request from the resident or give an explanation for not providing such a report. It could have considered providing a copy of documents that showed the materials being used were approved as it gathered this information under its policies. This would have shown that it considered the sensitivity of the resident’s concerns. It was unreasonable for the landlord to have ignored this request and meant it missed an opportunity to offer the reassurance the resident had asked for.
  14. The landlord said it consulted on the works in response to concerns about increased criminal activity on the estate. It said CCTV was only being installed in blocks where the majority of respondents to the consultation were in favour of the work. It said conducting a further consultation would not be a justifiable use of public money. It acknowledged the resident’s suggestion that specific information about proposals should be included and said it would look at doing so for future consultations. It did not accept that not having done this in earlier consultations was cause to question their quality. It said it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint. It was reasonable to show that it had considered the suggestion from the resident and was taking an opportunity to learn from residents’ feedback.
  15. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s example of its previous decision to run a second consultation on works following low response rates. This was unreasonable as it could have taken this opportunity to give a more full explanation of how it came to its final decision to move ahead with the works.
  16. In the examples it gave in both complaint responses, the landlord’s approach indicated that each block was being considered on its own votes and majorities, rather than the combined votes of the whole estate. Given that it considered the response rate from each block, it was unreasonable for it not to explain why it deemed the response from the resident’s block to be adequate despite the low number of participants. Its response did not demonstrate a consistent approach to each block on the estate.
  17. For this reason, it is fair and reasonable for us to consider the landlord’s response on a block-by-block basis. The resident experienced distress as the landlord failed to consider whether the response levels in her block gave a fair and balanced picture of the opinions of its residents. It should have considered running a second consultation or conducting additional surveying of the resident’s block as its Estate Improvement Works Policy says it will when response rates are low. This would have demonstrated it valued the resident’s concerns equally with those of residents in other blocks.
  18. In summary, the landlord provided reassurance regarding the resident’s concerns about fire safety but could have done more to explain its decision to proceed with works after the consultation was completed. While its management has the final decision on works, it did not demonstrate a clear rationale for its decision to move ahead after the response rate was poor. It failed to consider the poor response rate from the resident’s block. It could have explored other forms of resident engagement as set out in its policies to resolve this, or provided a clear explanation for why it chose not to do so. The resident was put to inconvenience as the landlord failed to explain its position clearly or acknowledge the inconsistency in its approach. Though it is acknowledged the landlord did some things well, a finding of maladministration has been made as a result of the failings outlined above.
  19. In considering compensation, a payment of £100 is appropriate for the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced. This has been considered with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in mind for circumstances where there have been failings which adversely affected the resident and where the landlord did not acknowledge its failings.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the installation of CCTV on the estate.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
    1. Written to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid compensation of £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about the installation of CCTV on the estate.
    3. Explained in writing to the resident and this Service:
      1. How it has reviewed the handling of the consultation considering the failures identified in this report.
      2. Any improvements it has made or will make to its processes to ensure a consistent approach to future consultations in line with its policies.