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

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (201913984)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913984

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

6 January 2021


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 reports of contractors arriving at his property without identification and entering a room without his permission.

Summary of events

  1. On 25 September 2019, the resident raised a formal complaint using the landlord’s online complaints tool, about the conduct of contractors, specifically, them not wearing identification and that an operative had gone into his bedroom without permission.
  2. On the same day, the landlord assessed the complaint, considering whether it was suitable to be dealt with as a “quick resolution”, rather than processing it as a formal complaint. It then telephoned the resident to discuss the issues and, during that call, it agreed that identification should be worn by contractors and said it would investigate the other issue around a contractor going into his bedroom without permission. The resident advised that he was going on holiday and would not be back until the following week but was happy to leave the matter with the individual concerned to follow-up and he would contact the landlord again if he needed to.
  3. On 1 October 2019, the landlord emailed the resident in response to the complaint he submitted on 25 September 2019. It confirmed that identification should be worn at all times and said that this message had been passed onto the repairs team leaders to ensure that contractors and sub-contractors adhered to this. In terms of a contractor going into the resident’s bedroom without permission, it advised that the repairs team leader would be speaking to the operative concerned. The landlord said that, as the resident had advised he would be on holiday for a week, it would contact him on 7 October 2019, with a further update.
  4. However, the landlord did not provide an update as agreed and the resident advised it of this on 9 October 2019. The landlord responded the same day and said that it would remind the member of staff dealing with the matter to call him by the end of the day. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with this, reiterating the issues he had experienced and the fact that he had had to chase matters.
  5. It is not clear if a telephone call was made later that day but, on 10 October 2019, the resident emailed the landlord enquiring as to why the matter had not been dealt with as a formal complaint and treated according to procedures. In the landlord’s response of 14 October 2019, it advised that the matter had been responded to as a “quick resolution” complaint and assigned to its repairs coordinator to investigate. It noted that the resident had been updated by telephone and in writing as to the outcome of this. It explained that, had the issue been dealt with as a formal complaint, the outcome would have been the same but it would likely have taken longer. It said it would normally only log a formal complaint where it was not possible to resolve it more swiftly on a less formal basis. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stance on this the same day.
  6. The landlord responded on 23 October 2019, when it explained that it had emailed him a response to the issues he raised prior to him going on holiday.  It apologised that it had not telephoned him about the matter on 7 October 2019, as agreed, saying that this was due to the member of staff in question being out of the office on visits with surveyors. However, it noted that it had since spoken to the resident.
  7. The landlord repeated its agreement that identification should be worn at all times and reiterated that this had been conveyed to the repairs team leaders to ensure that in-house operatives, as well as sub-contractors, adhered to this requirement. In respect of an operative going into the resident’s bedroom without permission, it agreed that this was “unacceptable” and confirmed that the operative in question had been spoken to and reminded of the behaviour expected of them.
  8. In the resident’s email of 6 January 2020, he expressed his dissatisfaction with the outcome and asked for the matter to be escalated through the complaints process. The landlord responded the following day, asking for his specific reasons for his request. On 7 January 2020, the resident advised that he was “unhappy, alarmed and distressed” with what had happened with the contractors and was also disappointed that the matter had not been dealt with as a formal complaint and that “phone calls and emails were late”. As resolution to his complaint, he wanted compensation for the distress caused to him.
  9. The landlord confirmed, on 8 January 2020, that it was considering his escalation request and would revert within 10 working days. On 9 and 10 January 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s chasers about escalating his complaint, reiterating that it was considering it.
  10. The resident emailed the landlord on 15, 16 and 20 January 2020, enquiring about its policy in respect of paying compensation for communal works that had not been completed within a specific timeframe (a separate complaint not considered here) and asking for a copy of its complaint procedure. On 28 January 2020, he contacted the landlord again, asking why he was having to chase up his escalation request.
  11. In the landlord’s response of 28 January 2020, it attached its complaints policy advised that it would also shortly be placed on its website. It stated that it would not escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaints process (although this was in respect of a separate matter concerning communal lighting). On the same day, the resident asked for an update on his complaint regarding the conduct of the contractors.
  12. The landlord replied on 3 February 2020, when it stated that, regarding the contractor entering rooms without permission, it had asked the company the contractor worked for, to make a decision as to whether it would accept a complaint about this within the next 10 working days. Regarding the contractor arriving without identification and the resident’s request for the matter to be escalated to stage two, it had heard back from its repairs team, which considered the matter to have been fully investigated at stage one and said that there were insufficient grounds for the complaint to be escalated.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord has a three-stage formal complaints procedure. Prior to the formal complaints procedure, the landlord’s ‘informal stage’ encourages complaints to be dealt with first ‘informally’ within 10 working days. 
  2. Where a complainant is dissatisfied with the response to their complaint at the informal stage, they may request the matter be escalated to stage one of the landlord’s formal complaints procedure, or complete the landlord’s formal online complaint form.  Complaints at stage one, two and three of the process will be responded to by the landlord within 15 working days.
  3. The landlord has not provided to this Service a copy of its compensation policy.
  4. The ‘Code of Conduct’ for representatives that has been supplied to this Service has been established by and belongs to a ‘fire solutions and maintenance’ company, which provides services including the installation of fire doors. Point two of the code states that “All operatives must carry [the company’s] identification badges on clear display”.

Assessment and findings

  1. The operatives were required to wear identification on attending the resident’s property. Whilst the code of conduct provided to this investigation is not the landlord’s but rather, the code of conduct of one of its approved companies, the landlord has acknowledged that this is the case. Having accepted that this was the case, and taking steps to help prevent a recurrence by way of ensuring expectations were reiterated to both internal and external contractors, the landlord acted appropriately. The landlord was not obliged to pay compensation for this, despite it being recognised as a breach of its code of conduct. This is because compensation is not an automatic right and, although the landlord has not provided its compensation policy to this Service, the Ombudsman can draw on its own guidance in this respect.
  2. The stress the situation caused to the resident is not questioned by this Service and it is clear he was uncomfortable and upset. However, compensation is not the only way in which a landlord can and should respond to a complaint, and in responding in the way outlined, the landlord took satisfactory and appropriate steps to address the identified failing. Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman does not consider it proportionate for compensation to be offered. Monetary redress would not make up for what happened and, by taking the matter seriously, accepting the error, and taking steps to prevent the situation from happening again, the landlord did enough to ‘put things right’ in accordance with the Ombudsman’s own Dispute Resolution Principles.
  3. Turning to the situation with the contractor entering the bedroom without permission, the landlord also agreed that this was unacceptable. Its response again demonstrated that it took the situation and the way the resident felt, seriously. Similarly, it took steps to prevent a recurrence here too, by speaking to the operative concerned and reiterating the standard of behaviour expected of them. 
  4. The landlord’s actions were appropriate and proportionate to the situation.  This is because where there is an allegation regarding the behaviour of a member of staff or contractor, as was the situation here, the individual must first have the opportunity, where relevant, to change their behaviour.  Mistakes sometimes happen and it is unfortunate that the resident experienced two similar issues which made him feel unsettled in his own home. However, there is no indication that these were anything other than mistakes and human error and the landlord acted proportionately in taking the actions it did. Although this is not the outcome the resident is seeking, compensation is not appropriate for these service failings, for the reasons previously asserted.
  5. In terms of communication and complaint handling, it is not in dispute that the landlord failed to contact the resident to update him as to the situation, when it said it would on 7 October 2019. The landlord’s reasoning for this was unsatisfactory and the Ombudsman makes recommendations regarding the landlord’s communication and complaint handling below. 
  6. In terms of complaint handling, the landlord was entitled to respond to the complaint informally, under its “quick resolution” stage, in accordance with its policy. It took a pragmatic view in doing so and it was not necessary for it to automatically progress it to stage one of its process. The landlord responded at this informal complaint stage appropriately by telephoning the resident quickly, taking account of his holiday and providing a written response within 10 working days, as set out in its guidance.
  7. However, upon the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction, the landlord’s decision not to escalate the complaint was delayed. Further, whilst its decision not to escalate was based on what the Ombudsman considers to be sound reasoning, it is not clear from the landlord’s complaints policy that a request to escalate a complaint, is indeed a request and not an automatic right. There was, therefore, a lack of transparency in process and this, coupled with the delay and the resident’s chasing of the matter, further aggravated the situation.
  8. In terms of the landlord’s communication on 3 February 2020, that it was asking its contractor whether it would log a formal complaint, this was unhelpful. The landlord had attempted to draw a line under the matter, having investigated and taken action but, at this point, it complicated matters by stating that a new complaint with a different organisation may be raised.  Whilst there is no information as to whether the company did raise a complaint, the landlord is ultimately responsible for the behaviour of its staff and contractors, irrespective of any external complaint that is lodged. Indeed, the request it said it made with the external company to lodge a complaint, came five months after the initial complaint was made and could be seen as seeking to appease the resident, in response to his continued dissatisfaction, which served only to prolong it. 
  9. In its responses to the complaint, albeit informal, the landlord missed an opportunity to apologise and to empathise with the resident, who was clearly anxious and aggrieved. In not doing so, the landlord, whilst accepting that there had been failures, missed the human aspect of responding to a complaint, indicative of responsive and sensitive complaints handling.
  10. Finally, it should be noted that there were many complaints lodged over a short period of time and crossovers in emails to the landlord from the resident and from the landlord in turn. Whilst the landlord has a responsibility to respond to complaints in accordance with its complaints policy and procedure, the resident also has a responsibility to communicate with the landlord respectfully and not excessively. 
  11. Reporting an issue is not the same as making a complaint; the two should be distinguished. The landlord should also be provided with an opportunity to respond to a distinct issue, without multiple issues and chasers being added, which only serves to confuse and protract matters. Any separate issues should be kept distinct. Whilst it is acknowledged that the resident felt stressed, he should be reasonable in his frequency and email content to the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord made reasonable redress to the resident which satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acknowledged and accepted what had gone wrong and took steps to prevent a recurrence. The landlord was entitled to respond to the complaint at its informal stage of the complaints procedure, in accordance with its policy.
  2. Although there was delay in its subsequent update and responses to escalation requests, the Ombudsman does not consider that this meets the threshold to constitute a finding of service failure, as the complaint was already satisfactorily responded to and appropriate actions had been taken.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should review its complaints policy in respect of:
    1. ensuring that it is clear that the landlord may not escalate a complaint where it deems the reasons insufficient and to explain circumstances in which it may reach this conclusion;
    2. reviewing its communication commitments throughout the complaints process, ensuring these are reasonably frequent and adhered to;
    3. reviewing its way of responding to complaints, specifically in respect of issuing apologies and expressing genuine empathy for experiences had and concerns raised.