Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202303698)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303698

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

31 May 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 resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of remedial works following a leak and its response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation.
2. The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied her two-bedroom first–floor flat under a secure tenancy which had begun on 17 July 2000. She lived there with her teenage daughter. The resident reported that she was self-employed and that her daughter was autistic. Her daughter was under the care of mental health and social care services. The landlord had no vulnerabilities recorded on its system for the household.

Legal and policy framework

Under the tenancy agreement the landlord was responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order installations for the supply of water and sanitation, including baths. The resident had an obligation to give access for inspections and the carrying out works as deemed necessary.
Under the repairs policy, a routine repair included renewing tiles, sealant to bathtubs and sinks, repairs to plaster, and should be carried out within 20 days while planned replacement of kitchen units, bath tubs, sinks, and wash hand basins should be carried out within 90 days.
The complaints policy set out that it would respond within 10 working days at Stage 1 and 20 working days within Stage 2.

Chronology

On 18 March 2022, according to the landlord’s records, an NHS worker for the resident’s daughter asked the landlord to inspect damage caused by a leak. On 1 April 2022, an operative inspected and identified that the kitchen laminate flooring had been damaged. According to the landlord’s records, the kitchen units were in good condition. The resident reported that they were to be renewed, as holes behind the units caused by a mice infestation were to be repaired. The resident would need to remove her water filter. A wall had also been damaged due to a “stuck” pipe.
On 14 July 2022, the resident reported “an uncontainable” leak coming from the flat above, which belonged to a leaseholder of the landlord. She had tried to contact the leaseholder, who was away. The leak had not affected the electrics. She was concerned about the ceiling collapsing. The landlord sent an emergency plumber but would not try a forced entry until it had tried to stop the leak.
On 15 or 16 July 2022, the resident made a complaint that she had made a call to the out–of–hours service and was told to call back at 8 am. The leak subsided. She called back. The landlord stated that it would send out an emergency plumber when someone was at home and that it tried to contact the leaseholder. The landlord informed the resident it did not have a record of her initial call. The leak continued. She had not received an update regarding the repairs following the inspection on 1 April 2022. She reported later that that the leak was “no longer containable”. A note was logged on 18 July 2022 that the resident had reported that “There had been continuously poor service from the landlord”. There was not sufficient maintenance work done and when it was, the level of the workmanship was “extremely poor” and “unsatisfactory”. She wanted an investigation and for the outstanding repairs to be done as soon as possible.
On 5 August, the landlord responded with its Stage 1 complaint as follows the resident’s complaint as follows:
1. It found that her out–of–hours call had not been logged on the usual report. It apologised for this and would speak to the person involved to prevent a repeat occurrence. It was going to ask its IT team to investigate notes which had stated in error, “no hot water”.
2. It would speak to another member of staff, as there were elements of their response that could be improved, despite her trying to be helpful.
3. It was required to follow its forced entry process which was “slightly more complicated” where leaseholders were involved. It appreciated this did not make up for the resident’s inconvenience and it was sorry it had not been able to act more swiftly. It accessed the property eventually and stopped the leak.
4. It apologised for the lack of follow–up to the kitchen repairs. Operatives had attended to carry out partial works, but the flooring and crumbling walls were not booked in as they should have been. It actioned this during their conversation. Its “principal” surveyor would visit the commencing 8 August 2022. In the meantime, the works to her kitchen, along with the ceiling issue due to the more recent leak, were being booked in with its external contractor. Her request for it to be done between 10-20 August 2022 had been noted. The surveyor and planner would liaise with her if there were to be any changes and the contractor would contact her to confirm start dates. The surveyor would review any works needed to her bathroom following a series of leaks and issues with her shower, bath and toilet.
5. It understood her overall disappointment and hoped it had reassured her that it “really did care” about its residents and wanted to do the best it could. The contracts manager would assist in any way to make sure all of her existing repairs and other issues raised (such as mice and external issues) were escalated. She could contact them if things were not progressing as they should.
6. It had passed on her report of what she regarded as “poor workmanship” over the years to its repairs manager for consideration and discussion.
7. Taking into consideration the delays, being given incorrect information, having to chase aged repairs, delays in resolving the leak, and for general disturbance, inconvenience, and stress, it offered £250 compensation. It upheld her complaint.
On 10 August 2022, a supervisor inspected the resident’s bathroom and raised “minor works to replace the bath panel, silicone mould wash the ceiling, plaster a small area, works to an “old” fuse box, and move the heat alarm. It noted that the resident requested that the bathroom and kitchen units be moved in order to address a rodent infestation and that the she wanted a newwork top and standard sink.
On 16 and 17 August 2022, the landlord’s contractor provided a list of repairs including the ceiling to be re-plastered, the walls and ceiling repainted. The resident had requested that the walls behind the kitchen units be sealed to address a mice infestation. The units would have to be moved. She also requested a new worktop and tiles and to box in some pipes. The landlord agreed to the works including replacing the worktop, the sink and mixer tap, and refitting the units. It would replace the laminate floor. In the bathroom, it was to replace the bath panel and skirting and seal holes, replace the extractor fan, mould wash the ceiling and redecorate and fit a flush door and repaint. It would making good the area above the front main door and relocate the heat alarm. The landlord agreed to the works using standard units. It noted that it had agreed to works that “did not need doing”.
On 14 September 2022, the resident made a complaint as follows: there had been no further communication in regard to the works starting, despite having discussed their urgency and wanting them completed before the month of October 2022. She had attempted to chase them up, but unsuccessfully. She had received no update on compensation for a kitchen appliance that was damaged by the leak in July 2022.
The landlord noted that the complaint was also about:
1. The works agreed at the beginning of August 2022 had been due to start towards the second part of August, to be completed by October 2022. Its contractor had carried out a pre-inspection on 10 August 2022.
2. The resident had chased.
3. She had requested compensation/reimbursement (£199) for her kitchen appliance (a ‘multi-cooker’) that she had reported was damaged during the previous leaks.
4. She wanted additional compensation because of the delays.
The landlord noted internally there had been no monitoring and follow–through of the works.
On 16 September 2022, the landlord approved a variation order regarding the kitchen ceiling and walls. It was not going to fill in the holes behind the bath but would wait for advice from the local authority pest control team. According to internal emails, the resident wanted all the works to be carried out at the same time. Dates were to be booked on 6, 13, and 20 September 2022.
The contactor reported to the landlord on 26 September 2022 that, according to the landlord’s records, the tenant was “now happy” for works to progress. However, she could not confirm appointments until after the 30 September when she would know her work commitments. The resident was to confirm her colour choices.
On 29 September 2022, according to the landlord, the resident declined access.
On 13 October 2022, the landlord replied with its Stage 2 response as follows;
1. She had asked to escalate the complaint on 14 September 2022 and spoken to the landlord on 15 September 2022. The landlord has not provided the escalation request to this Service.
2. Following the resolution of the previous leak, it had committed to undertake various remedial works in the kitchen and bathroom, including to the walls and flooring. Despite its planned works supervisor having been assigned to oversee these works, visiting the property and agreeing the full scope of works, the works remained outstanding.
3. She wanted all agreed works carried out without any further delay and to be kept regularly updated regarding progress. She also wanted further compensation.
4. It noted that it should not have taken almost two months (and counting) following its Stage 1 response to progress the necessary remedial works. It was not acceptable not to have responded to her request for reimbursement of the cost of a damaged kitchen appliance. It was particularly concerned by the lack of updates.
5. During the initial inspection, she reported a new problem with mice entering the building. She was of the view that all of her kitchen cabinets and her bath would need to be removed in order for proofing to take place. The landlord advised that it would wait for the recommendations from pest control. However, it was subsequently agreed that it would remove the kitchen units and worktops so any holes behind the units could be filled. The removal of the bath (which was a more complex and time-consuming job) would need to wait for the recommendations from Pest Control. Pest Control had attempted to attend on multiple occasions the previous month, most recently on 20 September 2022 but “upon arrival” they were unable to gain access. She had advised on 28 August 2022 that she would be going away, so it appreciated that this may have been a miscommunication on its part. The scope of works was now agreed as set out in an email of 3 October 2022.
6. Its contractor would liaise with her directly in order to arrange a time/date convenient. Its Complex Cases Manager would act as a liaison in this matter direct contact details. The Director of Housing management (who carried out the Stage 2 review) would track the work to completion (to include a post-inspection to ensure the work had been carried out to the appropriate standard). He would be updated on a weekly basis.
7. The landlord had passed the documentation regarding the multi-cooker to its insurance department. The claim was currently still being considered.
8. It did not consider that it was wholly liable for the further delay as part of the cause was due to the issue of the mice infestation that needed to be addressed in concert with the works previously identified. However, it accepted that it could have acted more swiftly, and been more pro-active in terms of communicating. It offered a further £100 in compensation.
On 20 October 2022, the resident reported that pest control advised that the bath would need to attend. On 21 October 2022, the landlord agreed to replace plinths as requested by the resident as they were “old and damaged”. It was still awaiting to hear from Pest Control.
On 28 October 2021, the landlord having told her to choose a worktop, the resident’s choice was 3 times over budget. The landlord was concerned about maintenance issues so it would supply its standard worktop.
On 2 November 2022, the resident requested a new front door as it had a gap and the measure taken was inadequate. She chased an appointment for the works. She had placed items in storage. She was unhappy with the offer for her kitchen appliance. She was also unhappy with the £100 compensation that was limited due to the mice issue though she had referred to in 2021/2. According to internal notes, she asked for the bathroom works to proceed if the kitchen works were to be delayed.
Additional works were approved on 7 November 2022. The contractor provided a quote for the worktop, kitchen sink taps, to overhaul any kitchen unit, washing machine, cooker control, sink top drainer, stopcock, bath panel, skirting, smoke detector, remove and refix bath for access, window repair, and bath.
On 17 November 2022, a list for the bathroom works was set out as follows:
1. Replace the bath, bath panels to the front and side of the bath.
2. Make good the ceiling and repainting, redecoration of the walls.
3. Replace the skirting.
4. Making good any holes where vermin was coming in.
5. Supply a new bathroom door with a privacy lock. It was not replacing the sink, vanity unit, flooring, toilet and tiles.
On 28 November 2022, according to an email from the contractor to the landlord, the resident had asked to book in works when she returned from holiday on 9 January 2023. There was no evidence as to why the works did not commence on that date.
On 23 January 2023, a professionals meeting took place between the landlord and mental health/child social care services. The landlord confirmed its intention to carry out the works. According to email correspondence, the plan was to start works on 24 January 2023 but the resident wanted a confirmation of the plan including the dimensions of the work top. The works were on hold. The landlord’s surveyor was to inspect the ceiling on 24 January 2023 but was delayed. He attended on 3 February 2023. The landlord reported back that the ceiling was bowed but not at risk of collapse. It set out the list of works again.
In emails 10 to 14 February 2023, in response to further questions from the resident, the landlord said it would dispose of the cooker/hob in the kitchen. The hallway would be completely redecorated. The surveyor had advised that the walls were dry following repairing a leaking rainwater pipe and would be stain blocked before decoration. The resident disputed the assessment.
On 8 March 2023, the contractor offered to carry out the works between 11 – 14 and 17 April 2023 (5 days).
On 12 March 2023, the resident reported a leak to the waste pipe that had been repaired. She requested a move on medical grounds because of the infestation. The following day, the surveyor inspected the resident’s photos of the rainwater pipe. The pipe had become detached, allowing rainwater to saturate the solid brick walls and cause water penetration. The contractor should return and repair the rainwater pipe to prevent any further leaks and a surveyor attend to assess any internal water damage, along with the resident’s “claim” that the flat was not habitable.
On 11 April 2023, the resident wrote that she did not want the works to be carried out at the same time as the she did not feel that 5 days was long enough. The contractor did not have the correct list or the necessary materials or units. There followed email discussions between the parties between 11 to 17 April 2023. The resident reported that the bath had not been replaced and the contractor did not have the extractor fan. The contractor offered the resident sent a website link so the resident could choose a new toilet. It agreed to the installation of a bifold door and to replace the tiles of her choice, including the floor tiles, to an increased budget. Following discussions, the landlord agreed to replace the toilet and offered the resident a choice. The resident chased the date of the completion of the hallway.
On 20 April 2023, the resident made a complaint as follows:
1. The works to the bathroom and hallway had commenced but had not been completed and she had not been given a date for when they would be finished.
2. The kitchen works were to start on 24 April 2023.
3. She was self-employed so she was losing income, it was inconvenient and she had to know dates so she could make work arrangements. She referred to the assurances in the Stage 2 response.
4. She felt the landlord was “cutting corners”, which was causing property damage (this referred to the external pipe) which cost more time and money.
On 24 April 2023, the landlord raised a job to disconnect the cooker, move the gas pipe, and the resident’s cooker needed to be installed.
According to emails 25 April to 29 April 2023, the resident reported that the kitchen walls were wet. She wanted them to dry and delay the beading before they laid the flooring, the works to be carried out over 2 consecutive days and to regrout the tiles and repaint the walls. Works were proceeding and the resident was offered a specific point of contact with the landlord. The contractor offered to carry out works on 29 April, 1 and 4 May 2023. She suggested 3, 4, 10 and 11 May 2023. The contractor responded that the plaster would need to dry, the landlord would have to approve the bathroom tiles and was not available on those dates.
On 28 April 2023, the resident raised a further complaint that the works had not been completed. It was agreed that the hallway needed to be redone. The bath panels had not been installed. She was concerned about the pest infestation. Her mental health had deteriorated and this had impacted on her work. Doing the flooring first had created a lot of dust.
On 5 May 2023, the landlord declined to accept the resident’s complaint about delays.
According to an exchange of emails of 9 May 2023, the contractor was awaiting a date for the bath installation, and the repair and painting of the kitchen ceiling. It offered 16 and 17 May 2023 to carry out the works in the bathroom and kitchen. The resident did not want all the works to be done at the same time. She suggested that the bathroom be completed on 16 May 2023 and the kitchen walls prepared on 17 May 2023. The contractor stated it would work better to start on the works at the same time to avoid further appointments. It offered to attend to discuss the works in more detail. The resident reported workmanship issues, such as a gap at the top of a door and a cupboard painted shut.
On 11 May 2023, there was an internal landlord discussion about extending the gas pipework into the new kitchen position for the gas cooker.
On 12 May 2023, the resident raised a further complaint about the “the lack of adequate management and communication”. She was not sure who to liaise with. The landlord declined to escalate the complaint.
On 15 May 2023, the contractor offered the following dates:
1. 16 and 17 May 2023 to replace the bath.
2. 18 May 2023 for the plastering works.
3. 22 May 2023 to paint the kitchen ceiling, replace the hallway door and snagging works. It would also measure the door so it could order a new one.
The resident repeated her request for the repainting and cleaning of the wall tiles and ceiling. She was expecting the bathroom to be completed. She would decline the works in the kitchen until the bathroom was completed. She asked whether a further appointment would be required after 22 May 2022. The landlord noted on 19 May 2023 that the resident had stopped all works pending a joint visit. A meeting was due to take place after a few days.
There was a gap in the evidence. The resident’s NHS team and social worker chased the works. An on-site visit took place on 18 July 2023. The toilet was not the one agreed upon. The landlord declined to supply a vanity unit but suggested an alternative. The landlord’s clerk–of–works reported internally that he had told the resident that the landlord would not be “dictated to” by the resident and “it was the landlord after all”.
There was a further gap in the evidence. The landlord informed this Service that there was 12 weeks pause at the resident’s request due to her mental health but that works resumed on 28 September 2023, this time by the landlord’s own operatives.
On 29 November 2023, the resident informed this Service as follows: she had had no toilet facilities for 3 days, she had been living “out of boxes” and the landlord was “unable” to fit the new cooker.
On 29 December 2023, the NHS, on the resident’s daughter’s behalf, chased. They reported a rodent infestation and lack of living space. It also reported that the resident’s daughter had been fostered in the meantime, partly due to the disruption caused by the works.
On 9 January 2024, the resident reported to this Service that she was having issues with her mixer taps, works were outstanding such as missing tiles. Jobs had been cancelled three times. A specific operative, that according to the landlord had been requested by the resident, was away till 21 February 2024. She was having major surgery in February 2024.
In May 2024, the resident reported that the cooker had not been installed and there remained a few works but in the main, the works had been complete.
On 24 May 2024, the landlord reported as follows:
1. All the works pertaining to this complaint had been completed as it had committed to. The fitting of the front door of resident’s property, which did not form part of her complaint, remained outstanding, given a dispute over the type of architrave. The issue had been referred to the specialist team addressing front door issues.
The hob/cooker/oven was responsibility of residents, in accordance with its tenant’s handbook which stated that residents were responsible for their repair. This reflected the handbook.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident reported how the events complained of affected her mental health. The Ombudsman cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s service failure or maladministration has contributed to or exacerbated a complainant’s physical and/or mental health. We cannot assess medical evidence and do not make findings on matters such as negligence, which are better suited for a court of law. However, the Ombudsman does carefully consider what a resident tells us about how they have been affected by the issues in their complaint, including the overall impact on them, taking into account any household vulnerabilities, and may set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant by a particular service failure by a landlord.

The remedial works

The evidence indicated that fault regarding the leak itself was not attributed to the landlord as it lay within the responsibility of the leaseholder of the upstairs flat. The landlord acknowledged that it did not respond altogether appropriately to the resident’s report but its explanation for the delay in accessing the leaseholder’s flat was reasonable, given its right of access would have been in accordance with that particular lease. However, the landlord demonstrated that it attended to the leak appropriately in that it assessed the safety of the electrics, it had addressed the leak, and agreed to carry out remedial repairs.
There was an unexplained delay following the landlord’s inspection of 1 April 2022 until the inspection 10 August 2022 and an absence of communication. In its Stage 1 response, it agreed to carry out, and indeed raised, remedial works and arranged for its surveyor to attend. It was reasonable of the landlord to agree to additional works requested by the resident, even those it did not consider required doing, and appropriate to address the rodent infestation and mould. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offer of £250 to address events to that date was reasonable and nor was it disputed by the resident at that stage.
However, the landlord did not live up to its assurances to assist “in any way to make sure all of her existing repairs and other issues raised (such as mice and external issues)” were escalated and to be a point of contact. It gave the impression that works could start in August 2022 or imminently at any rate, and it would contact her if not. Despite her chasing, there was no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident until she made a complaint in mid-September at which time the expectation was that the works would be carried out in October 2022.
The landlord reasonably acknowledged the delays at Stage 2 of the complaints process. While she had made a request to replace or move the units at the inspection of 1 April 2022, the landlord’s explanation for the delay being partly attributed to those works was reasonable. It was reasonable that the works relating to the pest infestation should be tied in with the works to the bathroom and kitchen.
While its explanation for subsequently changing its position regarding sealing the holes behind the bathroom units was reasonable, namely to wait for advice from pest control, there was no evidence that it proactively explained this to the resident. It was reasonable for it to decide to seal the holes in the kitchen in the meantime.
The landlord’s referral of the claim for the kitchen appliance to its insurers was reasonable, given there was no evidence it was damaged through the fault of the landlord.
The evidence showed that the landlord agreed to a number of the resident’s requests, a number of which fell within the landlord’s repairing obligations in any event, such as the plinths and replacing an extractor fan. The evidence showed that the landlord was amenable to the resident’s further requests including replacing the work top, tap and sink, boxing in pipes, installing a bifold door, replacing the toilet, and eventually, the bath. It reasonably provided a choice of work top and tiles to the resident and, also reasonably, increased the budget for the tiles.
The works took two years overall to complete following the leaks in April 2022 and July 2022. The landlord’s position that the delays were due to the resident’s request for additional works and suspending the works was true but only to an extent. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord put undue emphasis on the resident’s actions.
While the landlord reasonably set out a plan to monitor the works, there followed a number of delays. There was an unexplained delay in November 2022. The delay from the end of November 2022 to 9 January 2023 is attributed to the resident being away. An unexplained delay occurred when the works did not commence on 9 January 2023. A further delay was due to the resident requiring the dimensions of the worktop which had, in fact, already been provided. In April 2023, works were delayed due to a failed repair of the external pipe. Items were added after the 5-day timescale was arranged in April 2023, including replacing the tiles and flooring, and the toilet. It is, however, not clear that the timescale would have been adequate in any event.
Some of the delays were caused by unexplained delays in diarising the works. Others were due to the landlord’s contractor not having the necessary items on site, for example the bath. Some of the outstanding works consisted of snagging. Some of the delays were caused by the parties negotiating mutually convenient dates, the resident’s preference for a specific operative and by the resident suspending works for health and other reasons for which fault is not attributed to the landlord.
On other occasions, the resident suspended works as she wished to satisfy herself as to how works would be carried out. This was at least partially due to the resident losing trust in the landlord and its contractor completing the works in a timely manner and, while meetings were arranged, communication could have been proactive.
Once the works were due to begin, the resident made various requests about the scheduling of the works. Initially, she wanted them carried out at the same time. Once the contractor had scheduled them for a total of 5 days, she queried that not enough time had been allocated to the works, which proved to be correct, as much due to not having the right materials as to the landlord agreeing to additional works she requested. She subsequently requested that if the works were to be done in separate time periods, the bathroom would be done in one go, to minimise disruption and that only one area be disrupted at a time. This would be particularly relevant if the works were going to last more than a few days. The contractor’s response (in May 2023) that it was better to avoid further appointments was not unreasonable. This evidently caused frustration and difficulties for both parties. It was reasonable to offer a discussion in response.
It was reasonable for the landlord’s contractor to plan the works itself, to undertake the works in an efficient way and it is likely there would be snagging works. The nature of the work itself would dictate timings, for example allowing plaster to dry before painting. The landlord was also entitled to consider its resources and make reasonable as to the use of materials and have regard for its resources, as well as future proofing. However, the landlord did not demonstrate sufficient understanding of the resident’s circumstances. She had explained she was self-employed and therefore not only did she need to plan her working days but also if she did not work, she would lose income. There was further frustration caused by the resident’s prediction that the newly-installed floor would be spoilt by the ceiling works, and the incident of the failed external pipe repair.
Furthermore, the resident was seeking to minimise disruption to her home and to her daughter, who was both autistic and suffered from poor mental health. The landlord had been aware of the severity of the resident’s family circumstances, given the involvement of, and contact by, child mental health services and social worker. The resident’s daughter’s autism would have made the disruption more difficult to deal with.
While it noted that, in May 2023, the contractor made a number of attempts to offer consecutive days, there was little evidence that the landlord liaised with the contractor so as to improve communication and ensure the resident understood what works would be done and when and to consider the disruption to her household and home. However, the evidence showed that both the contractor and landlord arranged a number of meetings and conversations with the resident in order to clarify the plans and schedule.
While the landlord had been accommodating in a number of respects, the Ombudsman observed an element of frustration in the landlord as demonstrated by an over emphasis on the resident’s decisions without understanding the reasons for her frustration and requests.
The landlord should take a resident’s household circumstances into account. It should have due regard for its duties under the Equality Act 2010, to make reasonable adjustments, and its public sector duty to have ‘due regard’ to how it can eliminate discrimination and foster good relations between those who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. In the context of the disturbance caused by the works on the resident’s home, and the household’s wellbeing, the landlord should also consider its duties under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, albeit also in the context of what is achievable and practical. It also had a duty towards the resident’s child to under the Children Act 2004 to ensure it considers the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when carrying out its functions.
In summary, the evidence showed that the landlord made a number of efforts to accommodate the resident’s requests and to negotiate with her. At the same time, it was limited by the practicalities of the works. However, there was insufficient understanding of her circumstances, insufficient communication, and proper planning. The Ombudsman will make an order for compensation which reflects both the delays and poor communication attributable to the landlord and also the benefits of its actions highlighted in these findings, which the Ombudsman considers forms part of the redress.
It is noted that the cooker has not been installed. It is also noted that installation is the responsibility of the resident. The landlord agreed to disconnect and remove it and it also agreed to arranging to extend the gas pipe so that the resident can fit a new one. There is no evidence as to whether the gas pipe was extended. As part of redress, given the landlord has more resources that the resident, the Ombudsman will also make an order that the landlord installs the cooker.
It is also noted that her front door has not been installed. According to the landlord, this was because the resident could not agree to the type of architrave the landlord offered, while according to the resident, it was because there was a dispute about measurements and carrying out works to make the door fit. The Ombudsman has noted that the issue is still under consideration.
The resident wishes to raise issues about the door, a lack of toilet facilities and issues with her windows. These issues did not form part of the complaint. This may be partially due to the landlord declining the resident’s further complaints about works arising from the original works. However, it would be fairer to both parties if the resident had the opportunity to raise these issues and for the landlord to address them.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s complaint of July 2022. It responded within its policy timescales, if slightly delayed at Stage 2, addressed the issues it raised, it was open in acknowledging its failings at both stages, it took steps to identify a solution, and arranged for an inspection to take place.
However, as already noted in this report, it did not consistently live up to its assurances that it would monitor the works. Its communication with the resident did not improve. The resident was left to negotiate with the contractor on a number of occasions.
It was unreasonable of the landlord not to consider the resident’s complaints in April 2023, or whether these were the same complaints as that of July 2022, or whether this was a new complaint, given there were further delays. Given that the complaint had not been resolved, given the works had not been carried out, there had been no resolution to the complaint. This left the resident without an avenue and the landlord also lost the opportunity to resolve the further issues. This did not accord with the Housing Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, of seeking fair outcomes, putting things right and learn from outcomes.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of remedial works following a leak and its response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord agreed to carry out a number of works and made a number of concessions. However, there was an overall delay of 2 years to which the landlord contributed. It did not have proper regard for the resident’s household circumstances and vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s complaint was reasonable. However, it did not carry through its assurances to monitor the works and did not mediate between the repairs services and resident, so that there were failures of communication and a deterioration in the landlord and tenant relationship. It also declined to properly consider the resident’s further complaints.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 2 weeks of this report, the landlord should evidence to the Ombudsman that it has paid to the resident the sum of £300 offered in its Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaint responses.
2. Within 4 weeks the landlord should write to the resident and ensure it has recorded the resident’s household vulnerabilities as appropriate and in accordance with her agreement.
3. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £800 and consisting as follows:
  1. £600 in relation to the remedial works
  2. £200 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should install the cooker.
5. Within 4 weeks the landlord should inspect the property with its senior surveyor and contractor to assess whether any snagging relation to the agreed works referred to in this report remain outstanding. This time frame and order does not include the window and the door and any other works not referred to in this report.
6. Within 6 weeks of this report, if any snagging is required, the landlord should provide to the resident and the Ombudsman a schedule of works to be carried out withing a reasonable timescale and not to exceed a further 4 weeks. If no snagging works are required, the landlord should write to the Ombudsman and resident accordingly.
7. Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord should carry out a senior level review of the findings in this report and set out an action plan as to how it intends to address its failings to include a guidance note to the appropriate teams to include:
  1. Ensuring works are scheduled with an appropriate timescale.
  2. Scheduling appointments and works where a member of the household may be under a disability.
  3. Considering the incidents of the landlord’s poor record–keeping highlighted in this report.
  4. Monitoring complaint resolution.
  5. It procedure where, post Stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure, a resident raises a further complaint about delays to any proposed resolution.
8. Within 8 weeks, the landlord should deliver training to its relevant staff, who are in contact with residents, based on a) highlighting the Housing Ombudsman’s report on Relationships ARRRoE-22012024-FINAL.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) b) Attitudes, respect and rights courses on the learning hub of the Housing Ombudsman’s website. The landlord should evidence this to the Ombudsman by way of a guidance note for staff setting out what training staff is to attend and engage in.
9. The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 and 8 weeks of this report.