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

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202115830)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115830

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

10 November 2022


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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of a gas safety inspection at the resident’s property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the Emergency Control Valve (ECV) on the resident’s gas meter.
    3. The landlord’s communication and the level of support provided to the resident by the landlord’s staff.
    4. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident occupied the property, which is a 1-bedroom, ground-floor flat, under a secure tenancy agreement with the landlord. The resident suffers from Alzheimer’s disease, and so her niece has been appointed as her deputy by the Court of Protection, to deal with her affairs. This complaint is brought by the resident’s niece as her representative. The resident’s niece lives a considerable distance from the resident’s property and so carers are required to be present to support the resident during contractor visits.
  2. In May 2021, the landlord’s gas contractor was scheduled to complete the annual gas safety check at the property. The initial appointment was cancelled by the contractor and the engineer was subsequently unable to gain access to complete the works. The landlord then applied to court for a warrant to force entry to the property to complete the inspection. Throughout this time, the landlord was in contact with the resident’s representative, who had stated that she was seeking alternative accommodation for the resident. On 30 June 2021, the resident’s representative offered to meet the gas contractor at the property, which was now vacant, however, the landlord advised that it would proceed with the forced entry as the inspection could not wait. When the gas safety check was completed on 8 July 2021, the gas contractor found that the gas meter’s ECV handle was missing, and so it capped the supply and reported the issue to the emergency contractor.
  3. The resident’s representative made a formal complaint to the landlord on 14 July 2021, about its handling of the gas safety check appointments, which had resulted in it forcing entry to the property. She noted that she had been in contact with the landlord to arrange a date for an appointment and highlighted that the previous missed appointments had been the fault of the contractor. The resident’s representative also complained about the standard of service and communication she had received from the Neighbourhood Services Coordinator. The resident’s representative raised concerns about the missing ECV handle, suggesting that the handle had been missing since the kitchen was installed approximately 5 years ago. The resident’s representative was concerned about the safety of the resident and other vulnerable residents.
  4. The landlord accepted that its level of service had fallen below the acceptable standard. It apologised for the actions of the Neighbourhood Services Coordinator and its failure to provide adequate support to the resident. It accepted that the matter should not have progressed to the legal stage. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the missing ECV handle but noted that the delay in resolving the issue had been compounded by the contractor’s inability to gain access in previous years. It had discussed the issues with its gas contractor and made changes to its processes to ensure that similar issues would not occur in the future. The landlord offered £70 compensation, on top of £100 offered by the contractor directly, to cover the cost of carers for 2 failed appointments in May 2021.
  5. In order to resolve the complaint, in addition to compensation, the resident’s representative would like the landlord to provide “extensive” training to staff and subcontractors, and to investigate whether similar issues with missing ECV handles are present in other properties.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the gas safety inspection

  1. The landlord’s Gas and Fuel Safety Policy states at paragraph 5 that the landlord will complete a gas safety check in tenanted properties at least every 12 months, in line with its statutory obligations. The landlord will be responsible for repairing and maintaining all gas appliances, flues, and pipework. Paragraph 7 states that the resident is responsible for ensuring the landlord has access to undertake inspections, repairs, and maintenance.
  2. Where a landlord is unable to gain access to a property to complete the annual gas check, it will take action in accordance with its Gas Access Policy and Procedure, which sets out a 3-stage process. Initially, the contractor will write to the resident to arrange an appointment and if the engineer is unable to gain access at the initial visit, they will write to the resident with a second appointment date. If the engineer is unable to gain access at the second visit, the case will be referred to the landlord, who will escalate it to the second stage.
  3. The landlord will check its systems to identify any “health related issues”, which may prevent access, and where the resident is elderly, it may contact third party support services to see if they can assist. The landlord will then write to the resident to confirm that access is required, noting that it may seek a warrant to gain entry. If the contractor is unable to gain access on the third visit, the landlord will make 2 telephone calls to the resident before escalating its response. At the third stage, “if access is still not gained and the referral having no mitigating circumstances”, the landlord will apply for a Warrant of Entry to Premises, under Schedule 3 to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Once a hearing date is confirmed, a final warning letter will be sent to the resident. 
  4. In the resident’s case, an appointment was initially made to complete the property’s annual gas check on 5 May 2021, but this was cancelled as the engineer was unwell and rearranged for 19 May 2021. The engineer arrived at the property on that date and found paramedics attending to the resident. This was reported to the office and recorded as “no access” on the gas contractor’s systems. The resident states that the engineer indicated that they would return later that day, although there is no documentary evidence of this.
  5. The landlord acted appropriately by instructing its contractor to complete the gas safety check in good time before the expiry date. The landlord has apologised for the missed appointment of 5 May 2021 and offered compensation for the cost of carers, which was appropriate. As the landlord explained in its complaint response, it was reasonable for the contractor to record the visit of 19 May 2021 as “no access”, as it was unable to gain access to complete the works on that date. The contractor’s notes referred to the circumstances in which the contractor had left, making clear that the resident was not at fault. In the absence of documentary evidence that the contractor had agreed to return later that day, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding that they failed to do so.
  6. On 28 May 2021, the resident’s representative told the landlord’s Neighbourhood Service’s Coordinator that she was looking into alternative accommodation for the resident. The gas contractor re-attended on 2 June 2021 and 14 June 2021 but was again unable to gain access. On 14 June 2021, the resident’s representative informed the landlord that the resident had moved out of the property. On 30 June 2021, the resident’s representative advised that she would be at the property around 22 June 2021 to remove the resident’s possessions and could provide access to the gas contractor at that time. On the same date, the landlord obtained a warrant to force entry to the property to complete the gas inspection.
  7. After the initial appointment was rearranged, the contractor attempted to gain access on 3 further occasions before the landlord opened a “no access” case, which was in line with its policy and procedures. The landlord has provided copies of letters giving notice of the appointments, sent on 7 May 2021 and 19 May 2021, and referred to a letter sent on 7 June 2021. Although these were sent to the resident’s address, the addressee named on the letters was not the resident or her representative.
  8. The Ombudsman considers that, given the resident’s known vulnerabilities, the landlord did not take adequate steps to give notice of the appointments of 2 and 14 June 2021. The evidence shows that the landlord was in contact with the resident’s representative at that time, as she knew to arrange carers for previous visits. It would have been appropriate therefore have contacted her directly to inform her of the rearranged appointments.
  9. The landlord has acknowledged that it was unreasonable for it to escalate the matter to the legal stage before first responding to the resident’s representative’s offer to provide access on 22 June 2021. Although the landlord was legally required to complete the annual gas safety check, it should have exhausted all other avenues for gaining entry before making an application for a warrant and ultimately proceeding to force entry. The landlord’s policy states that such an application will only be made where there are “no mitigating circumstances”, which there clearly were in this case.
  10. The landlord acted appropriately by referring the complaint to its contractor for comment. The contractor wrote to the resident directly to apologise for its handling of the appointments. It offered £100 compensation. The resident’s representative has stated that it cost £170 to arrange for carers to be present at the appointments on 5 and 19 May 2021. The landlord added £70 to the contractor’s offer of £100 compensation, to cover these costs.
  11. The Ombudsman is unable to award compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident’s representative, as the Orders made must reflect the impact on the resident herself. As the resident moved out of the property some time prior to 14 June 2021, and the landlord was able to meet the resident’s representative to provide access to remove her belongings on the agreed date, the impact of the forced entry on the resident was minimal. For this reason, the Ombudsman considers that the apology and offer of compensation made to the resident during the landlord’s internal complaints process provides satisfactory redress for this aspect of the complaint.

Handling of repairs to ECV

  1. Following completion of the gas safety check, the resident’s representative raised concerns about the missing ECV handle, noting that when a contractor had attended on 14 July 2021 to fix it, he was unable to do so because the kitchen cupboards were in the way. She later stated that she had spoken to the emergency gas contractor, who had records that the missing handle had also been reported in 2018, 2019 and 2020 and asked why this had not been identified and resolved earlier.
  2. During its complaint investigation, the landlord identified that the missing ECV handle had been reported in 2020 but was unable to establish whether this had been followed up. Its internal emails show that the gas contractor had also found records from 2018 and 2019, when the matter was referred to a different contractor to resolve. Neither the gas contractor nor the landlord had any record of the works being followed up. 
  3. The landlord is responsible for ensuring the completion of any necessary works identified at a gas safety check and for keeping adequate records. The evidence shows that there were deficiencies in the landlord’s processes for communicating with its contractor and its record keeping was poor, meaning that it failed to meet its repairs responsibilities in this case. The landlord’s failure to progress the works, and a delay of over 3 years to resolve the issue, was unacceptable. The landlord stated that the delays were compounded by failure to gain access to the property in 2018 and 2019 but there is no evidence that the landlord was aware of any failed appointments during that period. Had the appropriate processes for communication with its contractor been in place, the landlord could have followed up with the resident directly to progress the repair.
  4. The landlord has apologised for its failings and explained that it would change its processes to ensure it was included in communications about similar matters in the future. It discussed the situation with its gas contractor and agreed that it would now carry ECV handles in its van, so repairs could be carried out immediately. The landlord would check its systems to ensure that all similar referrals had been followed-up, noting the resident’s representative’s comments about handles being removed during kitchen installations. It is clear from the complaint that the resident’s desired outcome included confirmation that the landlord had taken appropriate steps to minimize the risk of similar occurrences in future. In this respect, the Ombudsman is satisfied with the steps outlined by the landlord as these indicate both a clear acknowledgement that it had erred in this case, and also a clear action plan for improving its services.
  5. The landlord has taken reasonable steps to learn from the outcome of the complaint and made changes to its processes to ensure that similar issues do not our in the future. However, the Ombudsman considers that compensation should also be paid to the resident in recognition of the landlord’s failure to meet its repairs responsibilities between 2018 and 2021, which amount to maladministration.

Standard of communication and support provided by landlord’s staff

  1. The resident’s representative complained about the standard of communication she had received from the landlord, particularly from its Neighbourhood Services Co-ordinator (NSC). She referred to discussions about the resident’s rehousing and about the gas safety check, where she felt the NSC had been unhelpful and unprofessional.
  2. Although generally the NSC responded to the resident within a reasonable timeframe and sought to provide helpful responses, there were occasions where a response was not provided in a timely manner, or where the response was inadequate or insensitive. For example, the NCS failed to respond to the resident’s representative’s suggestion that the gas check take place on 22 June 2021 and failed to respond to the query about access to a storage cupboard. The responses provided about tenancy termination and about meeting at the property to provide access following the forced entry also showed a lack of understanding of the resident’s representative’s position.
  3. The landlord has accepted that it should have advocated for the resident better when discussing the gas safety check with its contractor, and that the matter of the resident’s tenancy termination was not dealt with sensitively. It has apologised and explained that it has taken appropriate action to address this with the relevant members of its staff. The landlord has explained that complaints about individual staff members will be dealt with via its internal performance management processes, noting that it would not be appropriate to reveal further details of disciplinary action. The landlord’s response was reasonable, and the Ombudsman considers that the apology provided for poor service received was a proportionate means of resolving this aspect of the complaint.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage internal complaints process. At stage 1, the landlord aims to respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, a response will be provided within 20 working days.
  2. The resident’s representative initially raised concerns about the landlord’s communication and the conduct of the NSC in 2 emails to the Neighbourhood Management Team Leader, sent on 8 July 2021. The resident asked for details of how to make a formal complaint. The Neighbourhood Management Team Leader acknowledged the emails, stating that a response would be provided by 16 July 2021. The response did not make it clear whether the resident’s concerns were being treated as a formal complaint.
  3. The resident’s representative then made a formal complaint on 14 July 2021. On 2 August 2021 the landlord provided a response to the resident’s concerns about communication and staff conduct, noting that further comment would be made in its formal complaint response, which was provided on 3 August 2021.
  4. Whilst the Ombudsman recognises the landlord’s efforts to address the concerns raised, the provision of multiple responses may have caused confusion as to the status of the formal complaint. Having received the formal complaint on 14 July 2021, it would have been a better approach for the landlord to email the resident’s representative, informing her that it would respond to all issues as part of a single, formal complaint response. Whilst this does not amount to service failure, the landlord may wish to review its internal processes to ensure that it provides clarity to residents about the status of a complaint and avoids providing multiple responses.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made an offer of compensation to the resident that satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the gas safety check.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the ECV on the gas meter at the resident’s property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for any failings relating to its communication and the level of support offered to the resident.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.

Order

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord must confirm to this Service that it has complied with the following Order to:
    1. Pay the resident £300 compensation, in recognition of the failings identified in respect of its handling of repairs to the ECV on the gas meter at the resident’s property.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that:
    1. The landlord reviews its complaints handling processes to ensure that it provides clarity to residents about the status of a complaint and avoids providing multiple responses.