Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202009512)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009512

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

26 June 2023

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of refurbishment work at the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

Within the landlord’s repairs policy under section 14.1 it says that a resident must have permission from the landlord before replacing flooring with wood or laminate and specifies that residents may have to remove the flooring and replace it with original if there are noise complaints from neighbours.
The landlord has a decant policy which it uses to set out its approach to moving tenants when it cannot do work with the resident in occupation. When deciding whether the resident needs to be decanting the landlord will consider:
1. Whether the property would be uninhabitable.
2. Whether the tenant is vulnerable or had a mobility issue that would make it difficult for them to remain in their home during work.
3. If a tenant is vulnerable, appropriate levels of advice and support during the process.
4. Is the tenant vulnerable or do they have a mobility issue that would make it difficult or impossible for them to remain in their home during works.

Summary of events

The resident had an introductory tenancy for the property that started on 16 June 2017. The property is a fourth floor flat with 1 bedroom and a lift for access. The landlord was aware that the resident had mobility issues and chronic back pain.
Although the exact date is not provided, in September 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that:
1. Her fridge was too close to a heat source and was obstructing the kitchen window.
2. The property had rotten flooring which caused a noise and posed a health and safety issue.
3. The bath was unsafe and she had slipped in it.
4. There was a built in cupboard in the bedroom which needed to be removed.
On 25 September 2020 the landlord inspected the property and noted
1. The bathroom had been replaced by the resident since she moved in. She had installed a new over the bath shower but this did not work due to low water pressure issues.
2. There were repairs that needed to be completed, primarily to the flooring.
3. It said that the other aspects of the resident’s requests were refurbishments of the property and not responsive repairs.
4. The landlord agreed that it would undertake the identified repair work to the floor but did not agree further work at this point.
On 27 October 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord she said that she had asked the landlord to update the existing bathroom to suite to suit her needs and “make her life more comfortable” however this had been refused. The resident said that she had a mental health illness which was made worse by the condition of the home. The resident gave the landlord 28 days to reply before she began her own legal proceedings. The issues she had were:
1. An extremely dangerous bathtub that had caused her to slip and fall resulting in a head injury.
2. Inefficient shower with a noisy water pump.
3. An inaccessible immersion system in a kitchen cupboard.
4. No storage space in the kitchen.
5. Creaking floorboards.
6. Outdated walk-in wardrobe.
On 18 November 2020, the landlord’s legal department wrote to the resident confirming the list of issues the resident had previously raised and gave its response. It said that the list provided was of alterations and/or improvements and not repairs. The landlord believed that the property itself was in a good condition and did not agree that there was a serious health and safety issue. A report was enclosed of a property inspection dated 25 September 2020 which considered the issues the resident had raised.
1. The letter discussed the resident’s reported fall in the bath and explained that the neighbourhood officer had visited the resident and seen the resident’s head injury. At this time she had said that she wanted a shower fitted. The landlord observed the bathtub to be the standard fitted in the landlord’s properties and assessed that it was in a reasonable condition with non-slip features such as a patterned tread and grab handles.
2. Occupational Therapist had carried out an assessed on 20 October 2020; they had recommended fitting additional grab handles and also provided advice on how to reduce the risk of further falls. There had been no recommendation for a walk-in shower.
3. The landlord recognised the resident’s mental health concerns and offered reassurance that she should not unduly worry as it had inspected her concerns and that the property was safe. The housing officer would be able to discuss a referral to adult social care if the resident thought she needed this support.
4. The letter concluded that the inspections had found no disrepair and that there was no health and safety issue.
In December 2021, following correspondence with the resident, the landlord’s legal team asked for repairs to be coordinated following the 25 September 2021 inspection. The resident was asked to remove her floor coverings so that repairs could be carried out. There was a delay in this being agreed, with the resident asking for help removing the floor coverings, which the landlord agreed to do at the time when the repair works were organised. At this point a Covid-19 lockdown halted progress.
In January 2021 the resident emailed the landlord about her shower, cracks and flooring repairs and what would happen next. The landlord responded that arrangements would be made when the national lockdown had ended.
On 7 April 2021, the landlord visited the property to inspect and agree works. After this inspection it emailed the resident to advise what the scope of the work would be and that a contractor would:
1. Fill a gap around the top of the wall where it joined the ceiling with decorator’s caulk.
2. Remove the boxing at the head of the bath and make it good. The contractor would provide a near match tile and remove old shower fixings.
3. Provide a new electric shower and remove the old shower pump in the kitchen cupboard.
4. Whilst it had not yet agreed this work, the contractor would provide the landlord with a quote for new flooring in the living room, hall, and bedroom.
The landlord confirmed this work in a following email dated 9 April 2021 and also provided an explanation for the creaking floors. It said this noise was common in the type of property which she lived, and that it found it difficult to eliminate the noise completely. It would investigate what steps it could take and would let the resident know its intentions.
On 17 May 2021, after the contractor had replaced the shower unit the resident emailed the landlord to report the contractor was “confused” as the new shower was making a loud noise. The landlord replied on 19 May 2021 assessing that the noise was due to low pressure from the communal water supply. The landlord‘s solution was to install a new shower unit which was designed for low pressure environments and this was installed by the end of May 2021.
There was regular email correspondence between the landlord and the resident between 19 May 2021 and 21 June 2021 where the resident continued to report low pressure and noise from the new shower and discussed with the landlord the best approach to dealing with issue. The resident asked for a re-route of the plumbing pipework and suggested that lengthy pipe work and connections supplying the shower meant the water was travelling a longer distance from the mains supply to get to the unit and in her view this was a likely cause of the pressure dropping.
On 8 June 2021, the landlord visited to discuss the pressure issue and commented that the pressure was adequate. The resident asked for the landlord to reroute all the pipework underneath the bath which it declined to do.
On 11 June 2021, the landlord visited the resident again and discussed the plans for the work it said that:
1. It would now progress the flooring replacement as had been discussed previously.
2. There was no issue with pressure so it would not be rerouting the pipework.
3. In addition, the resident also asked about changing the layout of her kitchen and was told this could not take place due to the kitchen size.
On 23 June 2021, after further conversations with the resident and contractor, the landlord met with the resident to discuss work in the property. The resident was concerned about her lack of space in the kitchen and also that the layout meant her fridge was next to the radiator, which was causing the fridge to break. After further discussions, the resident and the landlord agreed an alternative layout for the kitchen which included:
1. To be able to move the fridge further away from the radiator, the landlord agreed to change a base unit for a slimmer one.
2. Additional base units would be provided underneath a pre-existing shelf.
3. New flooring would be provided in the form of vinyl sheet in the hall, living room and bedroom.
4. The landlord used the opportunity to demonstrate that the shower unit was correctly plumbed in. The landlord did then agree to alter plumbing work as per the resident’s suggestion to run a pipe directly from the shower to the mains supply in the kitchen.
After this meeting, later on 23 June 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to again ask it to provide laminate or wooden flooring which she believed would resolve the issue with the creaking floor noise. In reply, the landlord said that it would not be able to install laminate floor and that it would discourage the resident from fitting it herself because the utilities were under the floor and any floor covering would be damaged if repairs took place. The landlord said on completion of the work to screw the floors down it would provide a vinyl floor covering on top as a gesture of goodwill.
On 25 June 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to say that she was living in a “total mess” without any alternative place to live whilst renovation work took place. She said due to her severe asthma she was “counting the seconds for the work to be completed.” She reasserted that she wanted the landlord to provide decent quality wooden flooring instead of vinyl. The landlord replied and agreed that it would now provide laminate as requested.
On 2 July 2021, the landlord received an email from its contractor asking to meet at the property as they were struggling to deliver on the pre agreed works as the resident was changing the specifications agreed at an earlier meeting. Issues included:
1. The resident did not want to have the previously agreed kitchen units.
2. The resident was not happy to have new electrical trunking along the ceiling to feed the shower’s electrical supply.
3. The resident was asking for the demolition of a cupboard wall in the bedroom prior to the laminate flooring installation.
4. The new shower had solved the issue with noise; however, it was of a smaller profile resulting in the need for extra tiles and an exact match to what was already in place may not be possible.
On 6 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to suggest the contractors removed the skirting boards to create a neat finish to the laminate, rather than providing expensive beading around the edges. She also asked for the electric feed to the shower to be run through the ceiling and walls as this was safer than its currently location where it was below the plumbing. She added that the work had left her flat discoloured by dirt and to put this right the landlord was asked to redecorate the whole flat.
The landlord replied that as per its previous comments the contractor would not be removing the skirtings and that the flat would not be redecorated.
On 7 and 8 July 2021, the resident sent emails to the landlord to explain that:
1. Her home had turned into a “full blown building site the last 2 weeks”. The resident reported the work making her practically homeless, moving from friends to families. She added that the landlord should have taken additional steps to avoid causing more stress and discomfort during the planned works forcing her to live in ‘such a condition’ that had affected her health as well as that of her parents. She said that she suffered from ADHD, PTSD, eating disorder, sciatica, migraines, and asthma. During this period, the landlord provided no alternative accommodation or financial support.
2. She had asked for the contractor to remove the skirting boards to allow for the installation of the base floor and laminate before reattaching the skirting which the landlord had refused, instead saying it would lay up to the skirtings and bead around the edges.
3. The wiring for the shower needing redirecting from being below the water supply pipes and through the ceiling.
4. The refurbishment had caused damage and discoloration to the walls and that the landlord should redecorate the whole flat.
5. Her fridge had broken 4 times because it was next to a radiator and by removing the redundant hot water boiler the newly opened space would allow for a better kitchen layout. The recently installed units were completely inadequate.
6. Described the cupboard in the bedroom as useless and the resident suggested the landlord should remove the partitioning plasterboard cupboard wall to open enough space for a fully functional wardrobe. She had reported this previously but had received no offer of assistance.
On 14 July 2021, in response to the residents previous correspondence the landlord visited the property with the contractor. During the visit:
1. The resident said that the contractor had damaged a skirting board installing the laminate, which the contractor did not accept. She asked for replacement skirtings, which the landlord was not prepared to provide, instead agreeing to undertake repairs.
2. The resident asked for the landlord to redecorate property. Instead, the landlord offered decoration vouchers which the resident refused with the reason given that she could not do the work due to her health issues.
3. The contractor had already fitted 3 new kitchen units as planned but the resident did not want any further changes and instead, she wanted a new kitchen fitted with the internal cupboard that housed the hot water removed so that the layout could be completely redesigned. The landlord said this is not something it could do.
4. When inspecting the bathroom, it found the electrical trunking supplying the electric shower was below the WC and basin which was ‘poor design.’ The contractor said it had run the cable like this rather than the agreed standard at the residents’ request. The landlord specified that the cable needed to run along the ceiling as was its standard and asked the contractor to put this right.
5. The resident showed the landlord the bedroom and said that the contractor had ruined her clothes when it installed the new floor. The landlord found that the resident had removed the built in cupboard and commented that this work would have caused any dust rather than the contractors when they installed flooring. The resident was unable to provide evidence that she had permission to remove the in-built cupboard. The landlord was concerned about asbestos and organised an air test, which a separate team completed and found there to be no concern. This team then agreed they would clean all the dust in the bedroom.
On 22 July 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord. She explained she suffered ADHD, PTSD, severe migraines, asthma, and chronic body pain. She explained she was having work done in her property to install a new electric shower and damaged floorboards, which had turned into an ‘endless nightmare.’ The reason for this was delays of over a year in what the resident thought would be a two week process. The resident reported internal fighting over decision making and refusals to get on with the job with the impact being that she had been made homeless and had to stay with friends and relatives for the previous two months.
On 26 July 2021, the resident emailed this Service. She said that her landlord was conducting work on her flat which had left her with no alternative place to live. This service asked the landlord to provide a written complaint response to the resident as per its complaints process.
On 5 August 2021, the landlord sent a stage 1 reply to the resident about the way it managed repairs in the property, and it said:
1. A contractor had fitted an electric shower in her bathroom which the resident found did not work properly due to the water pressure. After this the contractor replaced the shower with one designed to manage low water pressure situations and this solved the problem.
2. Following the resident’s reports that flooring was rotten, loose, and creaked when walked on, the landlord had agreed to replace the flooring. The landlord changed its offer from vinyl flooring to laminate, which was not something that it would normally fit, and it had done this as a gesture of goodwill.
3. As the resident had requested, it had made an offer to supply additional storage space in the kitchen.
4. It would not remove the hot water tank to allow for a kitchen redesign because it provided hot water to the kitchen sink.
5. It concluded that the repairs team was collaborating with the resident and would continue to do so.
On 10 August 2021, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said in response that:
1. The electric shower installation took ‘around’ 2 months with ‘contractors not even knowing what they were doing’. During this period, she had to go to her friends’ and family’s homes to take a shower.
2. There had been a mistake with the bathroom tile colour, causing more work in their replacement. During all the work the contractor created mess and dirt which eventually led the resident to move out.
3. She said that she had first asked for the landlord to replace the flooring on 2 June 2020 and because the creaking sound the delays in addressing this had caused unnecessary anxiety and lack of sleep.
4. She disagreed with the kitchen layout option proposed by the landlord and explained that the removal of the emersion heater would allow for a much-improved kitchen layout. The resident said that she had seen other properties owned by the landlord that had the emersion removed.
5. She was shocked that the landlord had not replied to other aspects of her complaint and there had been no mention of her homelessness during the refurbishment process. She said she was unable to return to her flat due to the mess made by the contractors between 31 June 2021 until 5 August 2021.
6. After the landlord had refused to redecorate walls damaged by the contractors, she had the work done herself at a cost of £2,300.
On 18 October 2021, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It apologised that the resident had needed to escalate the complaint. It said that it had considered the complaint by reviewing its records and speaking to the members of staff involved. It said that it did not consider there were faults relating to actions taken at the resident’s property although it appreciated the resident was frustrated that it could not accommodate all her requests. It said that:
1. It was not standard for the landlord to fit the electric shower, but it had done so to meet the residents needs and desires.
2. It had gone beyond its normal lettable standard to help the resident feel comfortable in her home. By refitting tiles to meet the resident’s preferences there had been no failing by it.
3. It explained that creaking floorboards were a common feature in this type of property given its age and design. The landlord explained the property’s construction had raised floors which rested on bridges to allow for electrical installation beneath. It had sought to solve the resident’s concerns by completing work on the floor and it also accommodated the resident’s requests for a laminate floor finish despite this being against the landlord’s policies.
4. It explained that the immersion tank supplied water to the bath and kitchen sink meaning its presence was necessary even with the electric shower. It had no records of removing them in other properties and invited the resident to provide addresses for where they had been.
5. It did not agree that the work left the property in an unhabitable state or that the resident required a decant for their duration.
6. Internal decoration decisions were down to residents to make, and it would not redecorate the flat. The landlord had offered a decoration voucher which it deemed fair and reasonable.

Assessment and findings

Following the resident’s request for flooring repairs, and once the Covid-19 lockdown had ended, the landlord acted to address the resident’s complaints about noisy and unsafe floors by instructing a contractor to complete the works to the base floor. After these works were done the landlord made the reasonable offer of replacement like for like vinyl flooring which was changed to laminate flooring after several requests from the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer a like for like flooring and this is what it originally did by offering a vinyl replacement. Later, the landlord accommodated the resident’s wishes by providing laminate and in doing this the landlord has acted reasonably and beyond its obligations to repair and replace or put right any damage caused by the repair.
The resident requested for the skirting boards to be removed when the landlord installed laminate flooring so to provide a better decorative finish for her flat. The landlords offer to lay the laminate to the skirting and to place edge trim around the sides is a reasonable offer for it to make, it had already taken the additional cost of installing laminate over vinyl and removing undamaged skirting was not necessary for it to do and risked causing damage to the existing boards and walls. The landlord is able to specify how it wanted work to be completed and as such it was justified in its approach to decline the residents suggestion to remove the skirting boards to allow for the laminates install.
The landlord’s decant policy does provide grounds for temporarily rehousing a vulnerable person if works present an issue that would ‘make it difficult or impossible to live in their home for their duration.’ The nature of the original scope of the works, included the replacement of an over the bath shower which was originally installed by the resident and had not been working for some time therefore would not have resulted in any sustained loss of facilities for the resident therefore it was reasonable for the landlord not to consider a decant being required for this work.
The work the landlord was undertaking was to provide a working over the bath shower after a undetermined period where the shower that had been in situ when the resident moved in had broken. Whilst the newly fitted shower was not working properly on its install, requiring further replacement, there was still a bath in the property which had been assessed as suiting the residents needs as per the occupational therapist’s advice dated November 2020. It is understandable that having contractors in the resident’s home would have caused disruption for the resident however there was no medium or long term disruption to her access to washing, bathing, cooking or toilet facilities that would have required the landlord to proactively consider a decant.
It is recognised that there would have been disruption caused by the works, which the resident reported as turning her home into a building site in her email dated 8 July 2021 and when notified of the residents’ concern the landlord responded as was appropriate by visiting her at her property with the contractor to discuss the work. During the visit on 14 July 2021 the resident used the opportunity to again ask for the skirtings to be removed for the laminate install and to ask for the boiler cupboard removal in the kitchen, both items the landlord had previously explained that it would not do. In responding to the residents concern by meeting with her the landlord continued to demonstrate it sought to complete the existing agreed work in a satisfactorily manner. Whilst the resident had stated the property was a building site, a degree of disruption was to be expected and when the landlord responded it is not evidenced that this concern was the main focus of discussion.
The landlord kept in a good level of email communication with the resident during the work as well as meeting with her at the property on 8, 11 and 23 June 2021 to plan and discuss the next steps in the work. Throughout these meetings there is no evidence that the resident raised issue regarding her personal circumstances, reported that she had been staying away from the flat due to lack of facilities or raised and the issue of a decant or other solutions.
The landlord has demonstrated through its communications with the resident that it responded and considered the resident’s requirements as the original specifications for the work evolved. When it was discovered that the newly installed shower was not working as intended, the landlord acted to replace it with an alternative model which was for low mains water pressure environments. The impact of this was that the tiling around the newly fitted shower unit required replacing and the landlord was unable to colour match the tiling to complete the repair in keeping with the tiles already there. The landlord then retiled the bathroom as was appropriate to make good around the newly fitted shower unit. This work was identified and completely quickly and whilst it would have been inconvenient for the resident to have further disturbances of the contractor being in her home, tiling work would not have impacted her access to facilities.
In addition, the landlord corresponded with the resident about the noise caused by the shower unit and her belief that the extensive plumbing below the bath was causing the issue. Whilst the landlord initially said there was no fault and the shower pressure was adequate after meeting with the resident it changed its mind and made the decision to accommodate this request and alter the plumbing work. The landlord appropriately demonstrated it was prepared to reconsider its original position after listening to the resident’s reasonable suggestion and in doing so ensured the resident was involved in decisions relating to repairs in her home.
The landlord has demonstrated being open to making changes to the existing kitchen layout within the boundaries of the existing kitchen space and worked with the resident to make changes or make offers of changes. The resident’s request to remove the immersion boiler and its housing cupboard and for the landlord to provide a smaller instant hot water boiler is beyond the obligations of the landlord who reasonably explained that the boiler provided hot water to the sink and bath and it would not be in a position to undertake this scale of renovation work.
The resident complained that the contractors had made a mess in the property and particularly referred to dust caused by the laying of the flooring. It is noted that this coincided with the landlord’s observations that the internal cupboard had been removed by the resident without it giving permission. There is an absence of any evidence that the property had been left in a poor standard by the contractors and the landlord fulfilled its safety obligation by identifying a possible asbestos hazard and having the dust checked quickly, after which even though no asbestos was found it conducted a clean. Here the landlord accommodated the resident and took steps to provide a level of dust cleaning when it was not clear that the mess was its responsibility. In doing so that landlord has been fair, reasonable and shown a continued effort to collaborate with the resident over issues raised during the refurbishment work.
The resident has referred to her health needs in the complaint. It is reasonable for the landlord to have concluded that as per the occupational therapist’s assessment in November 2020 the resident could use the bath and did not need a walk in shower, however the landlord did change its original decisions to accommodate the residents request’s by upgrading her existing shower. The resident had also informed the landlord of her mental health issues when she contacted it in September / November 2020. The landlord’s approach to handling the repair demonstrated reasonable adjustments for the resident by having a responsive single point of contact for the duration of the refurbishment work. This point of contact was in regular communication through May, June and July and sought to reassure the resident by providing explanations for decisions made and being responsive to adapt plans during the work. This was done by providing different options for the kitchen layout and changing the plumbing at the resident’s request. The landlord also accommodated the resident’s extra requests, such as providing laminate flooring instead of vinyl.
In conclusion the landlord accommodated the resident and her requests throughout the duration of this work. Whilst the refurbishment was not straight forward, the landlord and its contractor quickly sought to resolve issues as they arose. The landlordresponded to the resident’s requests and showed willingness to take steps beyond its repair obligations to accommodate them, providing an electric shower, changing the bathroom plumbing, providing laminate flooring, making kitchen adjustments and completing an additional dust clean. For those items of work that it could not progress, such as removing the immersion tank and cupboard, the landlord gave reasonable explanations for its decisions.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was no maladministration in how the landlord handled refurbishment works at the property.

Reasons

The landlord accommodated the residents requests fairly and facilitated the work in a reasonable manner. The landlord followed its policies when considering whether to offer a temporary decant.