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

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202319116)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319116

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

11 December 202 4


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:
    1. Report of a water leak under the kitchen sink.
    2. Request to replace flooring in the kitchen.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy which started in July 1991. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord owns and manages the building and is a local authority.
  2. The resident reported a leak underneath her kitchen sink to the landlord on 8 March 2023. The landlord agreed to send a plumber. On 15 March 2023 a plumber came out and repaired the leak. He noted that the leak was coming from the washing machine hose.
  3. On 3 April 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to log a complaint. She said that the water had been leaking for 3 weeks and that it took at least 2 weeks for someone to visit and repair it. The resident also said that the leak had caused damp, which had damaged her flooring. The outcome the resident was seeking was for the landlord to replace the flooring and for her to receive compensation for the stress and impact caused.
  4. On 19 April 2023 the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the delay in attending the leak. It explained that repairs to washing machine hoses are the responsibility of residents, but as a gesture of goodwill, it would not be recharging the resident for the plumber’s visit. The landlord set out that any damage to the vinyl flooring was also the resident’s responsibility due to the cause of the leak being the resident’s appliance. However, it offered a survey of the property to assess any damp or damage to floorboards underneath the vinyl.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 25 April 2023, rejecting the outcome of an inspection of the flooring by the landlord on 19 April 2023. She said that the landlord’s surveyor had not inspected underneath the flooring. The resident advised the landlord that she has asthma and the damp floor in the kitchen was impacting on her physical and mental health.
  6. The landlord sent out its stage 2 complaint response on 10 May 2023. It stated that it could find no evidence that the washing machine or flooring was previously fitted by the landlord. It concluded that the resident was therefore responsible for any repair of the leak from her appliance and any damage to flooring caused by a leak from it. It also stated that it advises residents to take out contents insurance in case of situations such as this. The landlord showed concern about the resident’s ongoing reports about damp and offered a second surveyor visit, with a damp meter, if the resident contacted it to arrange it.
  7. In referring the matter to this Service, the resident stated that she was seeking support to have the kitchen floor repaired or replaced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has informed us that the situation has had an impact on her health and wellbeing. She specifically raised a concern about damp having an effect on her breathing condition. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more suitably dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts if the resident wanted to pursue this and will not be assessed as part of this investigation. The resident is therefore advised to seek legal advice if she wishes to take her health concerns further.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a water leak under the kitchen sink

  1. The landlord was under a duty to keep in repair and proper working order the installations for water, as in the implied terms in s.11(1)(c) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. However, in this case, the water was leaking from a hose belonging to the resident’s appliance.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy sets out that it will charge for the cost of a repair if it is the resident’s responsibility to carry out the repair in accordance with their tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement states that the resident will be responsible for those minor repairs listed in the Tenant’s Handbook.
  3. The Tenant’s Handbook states that repairs to any appliances, fixtures or fittings that the resident has installed are the resident’s responsibility. Washing machines are referenced as being something that a resident should install for themselves.
  4. The landlord attended the property 7 days after the leak was reported, exceeding its timescales for responding to ‘Urgent’ repairs by 2 days (according to its timescales set out for containable leaks in the Tenant’s Handbook). It repaired the leak, despite it being the resident’s responsibly to repair. The landlord would have been able, under its repairs policy, to recharge the resident for the call out and repair (typically £80 as set out in the Repairs Recharge Policy).
  5. In its complaint response the landlord explained that it did not recharge the resident as a goodwill gesture to reflect the delay in attending the property.
  6. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of a water leak under the kitchen sink, because it was not responsible for the repair of the resident’s appliance hose. Furthermore, the landlord acted reasonably and demonstrated a resolution focussed approach in carrying out the repair and not recharging the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace flooring in the kitchen.

  1. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as amended by The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, the landlord has a duty to ensure that the property remains fit for human habitation.
  2. The landlord acted reasonably in sending a surveyor out to assess for any ongoing damp penetration to the floor beneath the vinyl, and to ensure that the property met the Decent Homes Standard (2006).
  3. The surveyor inspected the flooring on 19 April 2023 and noted that the concrete underneath the vinyl was dry. The surveyor sent his report to the landlord on 20 April 2023 and said that “I can confirm that there has been no such damp penetration to the vinyl floor covering of the kitchen in this abode and that the leak of 8 March 2023 has caused no such significant damage to warrant any such repairs or replacement to any floor covering to the kitchen.”
  4. The resident rejects the surveyor’s claim that he rolled back the vinyl to assess the floor underneath. However, the landlord was entitled to rely on the expert professional advice of the surveyor that no damp penetration or damage from the leak had been found.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response said that it had no evidence that it had installed the flooring and therefore the flooring was the responsibility of the resident. It said that it advised residents to take out contents insurance for eventualities such as this one.
  6. This is a reasonable response as the Tenant’s Handbook says, residents are encouraged to take out a home contents’ insurance during the sign-up process. Also, the landlord’s website states, “As you are a tenant of the Council, we will insure the building you live in, but we do not insure the contents of your home. We recommend that you take out home contents’ insurance.
  7. Since the leak was caused by the hose of the resident’s own appliance, the landlord was not responsible for repairing the leak. Therefore, the landlord is also not responsible for any damage to the flooring caused by the leak.
  8. The landlord acted reasonably and demonstrated a resolution focussed approach in offering to carry out a further inspection, with a damp meter, in its stage 2 response to the complaint.
  9. During our investigation, the resident has informed us that there is a continuing problem with dampness on the floor. No evidence has been provided that the second survey offered by the landlord has taken place. The outcome of this investigation is not affected by the findings of this second inspection due to the landlord having no responsibility to repair the leak. However, we will make a recommendation for the landlord to carry out the survey that has been offered because of the resident’s on-going concerns.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of a water leak under the kitchen sink.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the residents request to replace flooring in the kitchen.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should contact the resident to arrange a second survey of the property to check for damp if this has not already taken place.