Tower Hamlets Homes (202000153)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000153

Tower Hamlets Homes

31 March 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 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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:

Flooding at the property, reports of disrepair and the amount of compensation offered for the damage to the resident’s belongings.
The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, a two-bedroom flat. The resident is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a local authority.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. The policy requires that complainants are kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should acknowledge the complaint within two working days and formally respond within 20 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a formal stage two review of the decision and this should be acknowledged within two working days and a response should be provided within 20 working days.
The landlord’s repairs policy outlines the response times for different types of repairs, it aims to attend to ‘emergency repairs within 24 hours, normal or routine repairs within 20 days’.
Under the landlord’s repairs policy tenants are responsible for carrying out repairs to ‘any floor coverings not installed by the landlord’.
Under the landlord’s repairs policy if a ‘tenant misses an appointment, it will be rearranged. If it is missed on a second occasion, the repair request will be cancelled’. Where tenants refuse access for an essential repair the landlord can ‘use appropriate legal methods to ensure the completion of all necessary work’.
Under the landlord repairs policy, it states that ‘claims for damage to tenants or other third-party possessions will only be considered where the landlord could have reasonably foreseen the need for repair and failed to take action or where there is a clear legal liability. In other circumstances it is the responsibility of the tenant to make a claim under their home contents insurance. For this and other reasons we will encourage all tenants to obtain home contents insurance’.

Summary of events

On 15 January 2018, the resident reported issues arising from a flood in an upstairs neighbouring property, the landlord attended the upstairs property on the same day and fixed the cause of the leak. The resident reported that the flood caused damage to his carpet and belongings. On 18 January 2018, contractors attended the resident’s property and removed the affected carpet but failed to perform a ‘full sanitisation of the flat’.
Its not disputed that following the flood the landlord attended the property on multiple occasions to carry out repairs regarding the damp and mould at the property. Email evidence from the resident states that the landlord attended ‘8/9 times to perform repairs to the damp patches’ following the flood.
It is also not disputed that the resident did not have home and contents insurance and subsequently made a claim against the landlord’s insurer. It was found that the landlord had no liability for the damage to the resident’s belongings. The landlord however offered the resident £1000 compensation as a goodwill gesture for the damage to the carpet and the residents belongings.
On 20 January 2019, a support person on behalf of the resident contacted the landlord about the ongoing mould and damp issue at the resident’s property. They highlighted that due to the resident’s health condition ‘it was dangerous for him to be in a property with mould and damp and should be transferred’. It was also stated that the resident’s insurance claim had been denied as the cause of the issue was not a foreseeable problem. It was raised that the £1000 goodwill gesture offered by the landlord is not sufficient to cover the cost of the damage.
On 23 January 2019, the landlord responded to the letter and highlighted that it took the repair of its properties and the health of its tenants seriously. It stated that the property has had numerous repairs carried out from January to June 2018 after which the tenant had stopped reporting his repairs. It advised that the source of the leak came from an upstairs flat which had leaking pipes and it had been repaired. It stated that the resident said, ‘he had no wish to report his repairs and he will not allow access to its operatives but just wanted to be moved to be closer to his family’.
On 28 January 2019, the landlord organised a meeting with the resident in relation to the repair issues at the property. On the day the resident informed the landlord that he was not feeling well and could not attended the meeting. The landlord informed the resident to contact them when he was feeling better.
On 5 April 2019, the landlord met with the resident who agreed to give access to the property on 15 May 2019 in order for the landlord to carry out works. The works included a mould wash, renewal of a window unit and installation of an air vent. The landlord also booked another environmental clean for the same day.
On 9 May 2019, the landlord visited the resident at his property regarding a transfer application submitted by the resident. It provided the resident with transfer options available when moving outside the borough.
On 15 May 2019, the resident denied access to contractors attempting to perform works scheduled in paragraph 11 above. The landlord advised the resident to get in contact when he was willing to have the works performed.
On 21 August 2019, the landlord commissioned an independent specialist contractor attended the property in order to perform an inspection regarding mould and damp at the property. It provided the landlord with recommendation and provided a quote for works including the installation of an extraction fan and vents in the living room and two bedrooms to ‘allow airflow and eradicate any humidity and prevent condensation’.
On 9 September 2019, the resident provided a quote to the landlord for the purchase and installation of new carpet at the property for £2523.18.
On 23 September 2019, the landlord contacted the resident and stated that the repairs team was considering the recommendations from the specialist contractor and would be in touch to book the works.
On 3 October 2019, the resident and his support worker made a formal stage one complaint to the landlord and raised the following issues:
1. That the apartment had been completely flooded and caused damage beyond repair to his carpet, sofa, towels and bedding.
2. There were several repair issues that needed to be completed including mould and damp works and eradicating the smell of sewage in the flat. The landlord had also not provided the resident with the results of the mould and damp test conducted in September 2019.
3. The resident has long term health problems and a suppressed immune system and is therefore vulnerable and at risk from mould.
4. The landlord offered £1000 compensation as a goodwill gesture however the amount was not enough to even replace the carpet at the property.
On 9 October 2019, the resident refused access to the contractors responsible for installing an extractor fan in the kitchen and bathroom and also a passive ventilator to the in the living room and both bedrooms.
On 10 October 2019, the landlord issued an acknowledgement to the complaint and stated that it would provide a written response by the 31 October 2019.
On 31 October 2019, the landlord issued the resident with its stage one response. The landlord addressed the following issues:
1. It highlighted that it had visited the resident’s property on a number of occasions to carry out works and restore the property to a reasonable standard. The works included two environmental cleans, the second of which was completed on 15 May 2019.
2. It inspected the property and found no evidence of any smell but ordered further testing by a specialist contractor to check for any damp.
3. It raised that the resident had not allowed access to contractors on two occasions and asked that the resident allow access in order to proceed with damp works.
4. The resident raised that he wants to move to another area to be closer to family and although it is not managed by the landlord it was assisting the resident with the process.
5. The landlord re–offered the resident £1000 compensation as final settlement of the complaint.
On 12 November 2019, the resident highlighted issues with the landlord’s stage one response. The resident stated that the environmental clean was not performed on 15 May 2019 as he denied access as the chemicals were not good for his health condition. He also stated that he is yet to receive the damp report from the landlord and that he needed to be consulted before any works are performed due to his health.
On 26 November 2019, the resident’s support person stated that the resident would like to escalate his complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure for the following reasons:
1. That too much time had elapsed between the reporting of damp issues and the independent evaluation from the specialist contractor.
2. That the resident was not provided with the report from the specialist contractor.
3. That no consideration was given to the resident’s health issues when performing works at the property and that he continued to live in damp conditions.
4. That the environmental clean was not performed on 15 May 2019 as he denied access as the chemicals were not good for his health condition.
5. That the £1000 compensation offered falls far short of the £2000 plus damage caused to the resident’s property. The resident highlighted that the carpets had been newly fitted and provided a quote for an exact replacement to the landlord.
On 2 January 2020, the landlord contacted the resident’s support worker and stated that the resident was not allowing access to its contractors and then making complaints that the works were not being completed. The landlord offered to meet with the resident and the support worker at the property to prove there is no sewage smell. The landlord attempted to install an extractor system that would alleviate the damp issue however the resident continued to refuse access thus making the damp issue worse. It agreed to provide a copy of the specialist report to the resident and their support worker and agreed for a repairs manager to meet them at the property to discuss any issues that had not been addressed.
On 13 January 2020, the resident’s support worker contacted the landlord chasing a stage two response and highlighted it should have been provided on 23 December 2019.
On 21 January 2020, the landlord contacted the resident to book an appointment to get the works done at the property. The resident refused to book any appointments and advised that he had retained a solicitor. The landlords senior complaints investigator apologise for the delay in issuing the stage two response.
On 12 February 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and advised that the stage two response would be ready on 18 February 2020.
On 6 April 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage two final response. The landlord addressed the following complaints:
1. It made consistent efforts from October 2019 to respond to the resident’s enquiry. The resident’s reluctance to allow access unfortunately contributed to the delay in getting the issue assessed.
2. It stated that reports are not usually provided to residents due to confidentiality reasons however it had provided a copy of the report on 13 January 2020. It advised that it had been relayed back to its team to be more consistent and accurate when dealing with enquiries in the future.
3. It highlighted that the resident consistently refused access to its contractors thus causing further delay. The refusal of access prevented works that needed to be carried out to ensure the property was in a state that didn’t affect the resident’s health.
4. The resident refused the second environmental clean as he raised that it would be harmful to his health condition however the first clean in 2018 had no effect on the resident’s health.
5. It agreed for works to be undertaken by the specialist contract for the ventilation of the property and apologised if it was implied that the issues were due to how the property was being kept.
6. It advised that the offer of £1000 goodwill gesture still stood and if the resident could provide receipts to evidence the cost of replaced and damaged goods then this would be reconsidered.
7. It apologised for the inconvenience that the resident had experienced and advised him to work with the landlord for the outstanding repairs to be performed.
On 8 April 2020, the resident provided the landlord with the cost of damaged goods including:
1. A quote for the purchase and installation of new carpet at the property for £2523.18.
2. £250 for bath sheets, bath towels and hand towels.
3. £250 blankets and sheets.
4. Damage to his sofa and curtains which he had not been able to afford to replace.
On 17 June 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and asked to rebook an appointment for the specialist contractor to carry out the works previously identified in paragraph 18 above. The landlord was informed that the resident was shielding in line with the government guidelines.
On 19 August 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and noted that it had not responded to his email contact regarding the stage two response and offered its apologies.
On 5 November 2020 an appointment was raised for the specialist contractor to attend the resident’s property in order to perform the required works. The resident denied access and the job was cancelled.

Assessment and findings

Flooding at the property, reports of disrepair and the amount of compensation offered for the damage to the resident’s belongings.

The resident first made the landlord aware of issues regarding the flooding from an upstairs neighbour on 15 January 2018. The landlord had an obligation under its repairs policy to repair the cause of the leak within 24 hours, repairs records show that it attended and fixed the leak the same day in line with its policy. The landlord attended the resident’s property to assess the damage on 18 January 2018 and performed works including the removal of the affected carpet. The landlord attended the property ‘eight or nine times’ to repair damp patches and other minor works. The landlord took reasonable steps to restore any defects in line with its repair’s policy, it attended the property on multiple occasions and agreed to further repairs as they became apparent.
The resident’s support person contacted the landlord on 20 January 2019 to report ongoing issues with mould and damp at the property. The landlord attempted without success to make appointments to visit the property on a number of occasions to assess the works that needed to be performed. The landlord took a resolution focused approach and had an independent specialist contractor attend the property who made recommendations to fix the damp and mould issues which the landlord agreed to perform. The resident met with the landlord and agreed to provide access to the property for repair works to be conducted, however when the contractors arrived the resident refused access.
There is evidence from both parties regarding the resident’s refusal to grant access to contractors to complete required works which has led to significant delays. The landlord was flexible with the resident and continued to take reasonable steps in order to get the damp and mould issues at the property resolved. The resident’s refusal to grant the contractors access led to further delays in the repairs and potentially exacerbated the mould and damp issues.
The resident complained that the amount of compensation offered by the landlord was not enough to cover the costs of the damage to his carpet and belongings as highlighted in paragraph 27 above. Under the landlord’s repairs policy ‘claims for damage to tenants or other third-party possessions will only be considered where the landlord could have reasonably foreseen the need for repair and failed to take action or where there is a clear legal liability’. As highlighted above the landlord addressed the leak within the 24-hour time frame outlined in its repairs policy and there was no indication of service failure its response to leak. Accordingly, it was appropriate and in accordance with its policies, for the landlord to refer the resident’s claim for damage to his belongings to an insurer.
The resident subsequently made a claim against the landlord’s insurer who found it had no liability for the damage to the resident’s belongings. However, as the resident did not have home contents insurance, the landlord took a reasonable and resolution focused approach by offering the resident £1000 compensation as a goodwill gesture even though it had no obligation to do so.

The landlord’s complaints handling:

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy, if the resident made a complaint at the first stage the landlord should formally respond within 20 working days. The documentation provided shows the initial complaint by the resident’s support person was made on 3 October 2019 and the landlord supplying a formal response on 31 October 2019 in line with its complaint procedure.
The resident’s support person asked for a review of the decision on the 26 November 2019 and the landlord progressed the complaint and provided its final stage two review on 6 April 2020. This represents a four-month delay in providing the resident with its stage two response. The landlord apologised for the delay and stated that it would [provide the response on 12 February 2020 however it failed to meet this deadline. The length of time that passed was not appropriate or in line with the landlord’s policies and evidently caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint about flooding at the property, reports of disrepair and the amount of compensation offered for the damage to the resident’s belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord attended to reports of flooding at the property within 24 hours in line with is repairs policy. The landlord took a resolution focused approach and attempted to perform repairs at the resident’s property on several occasions. The actions of the resident in not providing access contributed to the significant delays experienced. The landlord was not liable for the damage to the resident’s belongings however it acted reasonably by offering the resident a £1000 goodwill gesture in order to resolve the dispute.
The complaints handling by the landlord was not in line with its internal policies at stage two of the complaints process. It failed to provide a formal response within the correct 20-day time frame outlined in its complaints policy. It failed to adequately communicate with the resident about the delay and the resident’s support person had to chase up the response.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord is to make this payment to the resident within four weeks and to update this service when payment has been made.

Recommendations

The landlord reoffer the resident the £1000 goodwill gesture in order for him replace damaged personal items at the property.
The landlord is to arrange a meeting the resident and his representative to discuss the completion of the required works.
The resident reports any ongoing repairs issues at the property to the landlord.

The landlord should review its complaints policy – last year, the Ombudsman published a Complaint Handling Code which provides a framework for high-quality complaint handling and greater consistency across landlord’s complaint procedures. This applies to all members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. It will enable landlords to resolve complaints raised by their residents quickly and to use the learning from complaints to drive service improvements. It sets out good practice for the sector that will allow landlords to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The Code will help residents in knowing what to expect from their landlord when they make a complaint and how to progress their complaint. Non-compliance with the Code could result in the Ombudsman issuing complaint handling failure orders. The Code can be found here: https://hos.dev.civiccomputing.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/07/ComplaintHandling-Code.pdf