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

Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited (201908453)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201908453

Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited

18 January 2021


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The 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 response to the resident’s reports of damage caused to the property following a leak.
    2. The landlord’s communication in relation to a cancelled appointment following the leak.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling of these matters.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder and the landlord is the freeholder of the property.

Summary of events:

  1. On 24 January 2019, the resident reported a leak to the landlord. Following the report, the landlord raised two repair orders. The first repair request raised was to make the resident’s bathroom light safe after water had penetrated through the ceiling into the resident’s property; this affected the lighting but not the structure of the property. However, this repair was raised incorrectly it was raised against the resident’s property instead of the neighbour’s property above, where the leak was coming from. This was subsequently cancelled and a second repair job had been raised to ‘’trace and remedy leak affecting resident’s bathroom’’ against the neighbour’s property. The resident was not made aware of the first repair being cancelled.
  2. An operative attended the neighbour’s property on 24 January 2019 to trace and remedy the leak. The plumber identified loose wall tiles and missing grout around the side of the neighbour’s bath which had caused the leak. A temporary fix was carried out which involved covering the defective area with plastic to prevent further leaks. The plumber had also noted that he attempted to knock on the resident’s property to inform him of the actions taken; however, no one answered the door. The landlord had stated that it had not been informed about the defect to the neighbour’s tiles and grout prior to the resident’s report of the leak on 24 January 2019; therefore, the landlord was unaware of the issues beforehand. The temporary fix proved to be successful as no further leaks had been reported.
  3. A permanent repair was carried out on 24 April 2019.
  4. Based on the information provided, it appears there was no further communication between the resident and the landlord from 24 January 2019 to 30 September 2019.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord via telephone on 30 September 2019 expressing dissatisfaction regarding the delay between the temporary and permanent fix to the cause of the leak, as well as loose wall tiles and missing grout around the bath and the bathroom light not being fixed when a repair had been raised for this. He was also unhappy about the lack of communication as to why the first repair had been cancelled.
  6. The complaint was handled informally as the landlord’s complaints policy states it will not formally investigate complaints raised more than six months after the events which led to the complaint. The landlord’s records show that a voicemail was left for the resident which stated that ’’the delay in completing the repair was due to access problems and as the resident is a leaseholder, the landlord would not carry out any repairs to the resident’s home and advised that the resident should claim on his insurance’’.
  7. The resident then wrote a letter to the landlord on 21 October 2019 referring to the phone call on 30 September 2019; this letter explained that the resident was dissatisfied with the level of service he received due to the ‘’lack of communication and urgency’’.
  8. The landlord responded to the letter on 01 November 2019, the response letter was sent to the resident’s property but this was not the correspondence address for the resident. The resident had another correspondence address but this was not on the landlord’s file and, therefore, the resident did not receive the first response letter. The letter contained an apology and explanation as to why the resident did not receive any communication on the cancelled repair. The letter also explained that the landlord had incorrectly raised the repair and cancelled it when the landlord realised the mistake.
  9. Having not received the response letter, the resident re-sent the same dissatisfaction letter to the landlord on 01 November 2019 and again on 24 November 2019. The landlord agreed that the complaint letter from the resident should have initially been logged as a formal complaint when the first letter was sent. The landlord logged the letter as a formal complaint on 25 November 2019 as part of the landlord’s stage one complaints process.
  10. The stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 24 December 2019. In the stage one response letter, the landlord admitted to its failings and apologised. The landlord stated that the first repair had been raised incorrectly and this was rectified by raising the correct repair appointment and cancelling the first one. The landlord apologised that this had not been communicated with the resident which left the resident unaware of the cancelled appointment. The landlord stated that plans were being put in place to learn from the complaint so that the agents working on behalf of the landlord ‘’clearly communicate the repairs process concerning leaks’’. The landlord further explained that the responsibility for any repairs inside the resident’s property falls on the resident as he is the leaseholder. This is in accordance with the Lease Agreement.
  11. On 07 January 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord and stated that he was seeking compensation due to the ‘’trauma and unacceptable behaviour and the lack of urgency provided’’.
  12. The landlord responded to the resident on 07 January 2020 which explained that the stage one complaint response had addressed the issues and it apologised for the inconvenience. The landlord also acknowledged that the resident did not feel his concerns had been addressed.
  13. The resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service to escalate his complaint on 16 July 2020. The Housing Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 05 August 2020 and it advised the resident had not exhausted the complaints process.
  14. On 19 August 2020, the Housing Ombudsman asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage two of its formal complaint process.
  15. The landlord acknowledged the stage two escalation request on 20 August 2020.
  16. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response of 02 September 2020, the landlord maintained its earlier position regarding the cancelled repair appointment and repairs to the resident’s property. The landlord did not uphold the complaint, yet it did offer £25.00 compensation as a goodwill gesture, despite not finding any failings.
  17. The resident escalated his complaint to The Housing Ombudsman on 04 September 2020; the resident stated that he sublet the property and he had potentially lost £1300.00 per month in rent charges from tenants as he had been unable to let the property due to the water damage.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s response to damage caused by the leak

  1. In the landlord’s Repair Handbook, it states that the resident is responsible for ‘’all internal parts of your home including all services that are only used by you’’.
  2. The landlord’s repairs responsibility exclude any internal parts of the resident’s home; this is in accordance with the landlord’s Repairs Handbook. The main responsibilities of the landlord include ‘’the main structure of the building and communal areas including walls, foundations, window frames, balcony doors (excluding glazing, locks and fittings), communal doors and the roof’’.
  3. It is not disputed that the landlord is required to undertake any repairs when there is a leak present that is causing damage to ‘’other properties’’ and should respond within a reasonable manner to prevent further leaks from occurring as this is classed as a ‘’serious situation’’ in the landlord’s Repairs Handbook.
  4. Based on the information gathered, it is evident that the landlord acted accordingly and responded to the leak on the same day that it was reported and carried out a temporary fix. This was an appropriate response on the landlord’s behalf as it is not always possible to carry out a full permanent repair immediately, on the first visit. A temporary repair was appropriate to prevent damage from occurring whilst a permanent repair is arranged for a later date within a reasonable timescale, in line with the landlord’s Repairs Policy.
  5. There was a clear delay in between the temporary fix carried out on 24 January 2019 and the permanent fix carried out on 24 April 2019. The landlord had acknowledged this delay and explained that the delay in repairs were due to access issues involving the neighbour’s property. The landlord apologised for the delay. Despite this delay, there were no reported leaks in the duration between the temporary and permanent fix, suggesting the temporary repair had been successful in preventing further damage before the permanent repair was carried out. During this time, the landlord was making reasonable efforts to gain entry to the neighbour’s property. The landlord cannot force entry to the property (except in an emergency) without a court order. The court would generally only grant such an order if the landlord could show it had made reasonable efforts to contact the neighbour without success. Legal action to gain access is a lengthy process and it is not likely that this could have been completed between the dates of the temporary and permanent fix. Therefore, the landlord could not have reasonably acted differently to carry the repair out sooner.
  6. Furthermore, the landlord was correct to advise the resident that he was responsible for the repairs needed to the interior of his property following the leak. This is in line with the Lease Agreement. Therefore, the advice to contact his home contents insurance provider was reasonable in the circumstances as it was appropriate to suggest he claim for the damage against his own insurance policy.

Landlord’s communication   

  1. It is agreed that the first repair request was raised incorrectly as the leak was emerging from the neighbour’s property and not the resident’s property. The correct repair order was raised ten minutes after the first one was raised; however, the first repair order, which included the repair of fixtures to the resident’s bathroom lights, was not the responsibility of the landlord, as mentioned in the landlord’s Leasehold Handbook. Therefore, the first job was cancelled and the resident was left unaware that this was the case. This was not appropriate as the landlord should have informed the resident of the cancelled repair as well as explaining why the repair request was cancelled; this may have reduced the inconvenience he experienced due to this error.
  2. The landlord acknowledged this mistake in the its stage one complaint response and apologised for this error. The landlord explained why the repair was cancelled; there would be plans put in place to learn from the complaint by training the landlord’s Leasehold Team to communicate clearly to residents regarding the repairs process and leasehold responsibilities. This was an appropriate response and the apology provided adequate redress. In addition, the resident did not put forward a further complaint nor did the resident chase up on the cancelled repair job for eight months, although it is not disputed that the landlord should have still kept the resident informed regarding the first repair request.
  3. In short, the landlord had acknowledged its error, explained this clearly to the resident, and provided adequate redress for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  4. Nonetheless, as a result of not informing the resident of the cancelled repair job in the first instance, the resident explained that he potentially lost £1300.00 per month due to the inability to sublet his property due to the lighting not being fixed. As explained above, it is the leaseholder’s responsibility to repair any electrical work within the property including lights and it is not the responsibility of the landlord. In line with its Compensation Policy, the landlord offered the resident £400 compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused by the lack of clear communication about the repairs. The landlord had also stated that measures would be put in place to ensure staff are explaining the responsibilities of the leaseholders thoroughly moving forward. This was an appropriate response as the landlord apologised for its mistakes in not addressing the repairs responsibilities of the leaseholder; although the landlord could have been clearer about its and the resident’s repair responsibilities, the resident also could have followed this up with the landlord sooner in an effort to clarify the situation regarding the repairs.

 

  1. Also, whilst the Ombudsman notes the resident’s comments regarding the loss of rent he experienced, we cannot hold the landlord directly responsible for this as we do not have evidence to confirm this was the sole reason why the property was not sublet at the time. The resident could also have taken action to arrange repairs himself to avoid the loss of rent, although there was some confusion concerning his responsibility for arranging repairs.

 

 

Complaint Handling

  1. In accordance with page two of the landlord’s Complaints Policy, the landlord’s definition of a complaint is ‘’an expression of dissatisfaction with a service that the landlord provides’’. It is not disputed that the resident portrayed clear signs of dissatisfaction in their original complaint which stated ‘’I am writing to complaint about my dissatisfaction with the landlord’s community services’’. However, the landlord acknowledged that the complaint had not been logged as a formal complaint in the first instance, which was inappropriate. The landlord did respond to the letter informally. This was not an appropriate response to the original complaint as the complaint should have been logged formally once the first letter had been received. The landlord acknowledged this in its final response letter and apologised for the error; the complaint was formally logged after the third letter had been sent to the landlord. It is clear that the landlord did not respond reasonably to the initial complaint letters and the landlord should have taken steps to recognise any dissatisfaction and record it as a formal complaint and deal with it as part of its complaint process. To put matters right, the landlord should review its complaint handling and should offer compensation as set out below for the lack of clarity in its complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the complaint about this matter.

Reasons

Landlord’s response to the leak

  1. The landlord responded to the leak within reasonable time and attended the same day and carried out a temporary fix which was the appropriate action. The landlord advised the resident that as the leaseholder, he would be responsible for any repairs caused by the leak; this is in accordance with the landlord’s Repairs Handbook.

Landlord’s communication

  1. The landlord rectified its mistakes in regard to the lack of communication and had offered reasonable redress. The landlord offered £400.00 compensation for the lack of communication and the inconvenience caused to the resident, which was in line with its Compensation Policy. The landlord states that measures would be put in place to ensure that communication is clearer.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging errors in its complaint handling. However, an apology alone is not sufficient for the inconvenience caused by delays in the landlord logging the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint and responding to it accordingly. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay £50 compensation in view of this issue.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50.00 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the lack of clarity in its complaint handling. This should be paid within 28 days of the date of this letter.

Recommendations

  1. The Landlord should consider reviewing its Complaints Policy in order to have a clear, structured complaint procedure which explains how the complaint will be investigated at each stage, the timeframe in which the resident would expect to receive a response, and clear direction of how the complaint can be escalated should the resident remain dissatisfied. The Landlord should bring its complaints process into line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code by 31 January 2021.