London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202100263)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100263

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

4 February 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

The complaint was about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak onto her balcony.
2. The resident’s reports of staff conduct, including victimisation and discrimination.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling including the level of compensation.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a second–floor two-bedroom flat in a new-build block with her children under an assured tenancy agreement. The tenancy began on 6 February 2019. The landlord had recorded support needs for the resident, who also reported having unspecified medical conditions in her complaint correspondence.

Legal and policy framework

In the tenancy agreement, the landlord advised the resident to take out home contents insurance as it would not “generally” be responsible for any losses a resident may suffer. The landlord was obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house. A term would have been implied into the tenancy agreement by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 that the property was fit for habitation in relation to damp. The resident should report any repairs needed promptly.
Under the repairs policy, the landlord said it had a responsibility to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s home safe, secure and weatherproof. It would repair water leaks and extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. The repairs policy did not deal with damage by third parties. However, under the legal principles of negligence, a landlord or a third party, as applicable, would be liable for any foreseeable damage it had caused.
The complaints process consisted of a two-stage procedure. The response timescale for the first stage was 10 working days and, for the second stage, 20 working days from the date of the resident’s request to escalate the complaint. If the landlord could not comply with that timescale, it would explain why and write again within a further 10 working days. Complaints relating to staff conduct would be fully investigated in line with its HR policies, but it could not disclose, for reasons of confidentiality, the outcome of those investigations. It would, however, explain what its investigation involved.
The landlord’s compensation policy set out a schedule for discretionary payments. Compensation for failure to address an ‘urgent” repair was £5 per day up to a maximum of £100 if not made good within 5 days such as a slow leak, while compensation for delay to repairing a routine defect such as a decorative issue would be £2 per a day, up to a maximum of £50. Compensation would be considered where the landlord failed to follow its policies and procedures. It would pay £10 for a failure to respond to a formal complaint within the landlord’s complaint policy timescales.
The landlord’s policy set out that it should investigate all claims thoroughly, obtain receipts and/or obtain photographic evidence, where necessary. Customers should be advised to retain all evidence relating to the claim. Compensation was not a replacement for home contents insurance. Customers were responsible for arranging their own home contents insurance for accidental damage to their belongings/property that was not the landlord’s responsibility.
The government announced a lockdown beginning 5 November 2020, during which there were government guidelines in place advising landlords to limit repairs to those which were considered to be urgent. While lockdown was lifted on 2 December 2020, there were still restrictions in place and a backlog of repairs had been created. England entered into a third lockdown on 6 January 2021.

Chronology

One aspect of the resident’s complaint was in relation to specific officers of the landlord. In the circumstances, for the benefit of clarity, the report will refer to those officers as A and B as appropriate. The landlord had a number of teams which shall be referred to as team C, D and E.
On 4 November 2020, the resident reported to the landlord’s officers A and B that her upstairs neighbour had been spreading their wet clothes in their balcony and which may have caused a water leak. She said it was exacerbating her medical conditions. She sent photos and a video as evidence.
Officer B replied and suggested that the resident knock on her neighbour’s door in order to resolve the issue, as they may not be aware that the water was leaking through the balcony.
The resident replied the same day to state she would not be able to, as she did not know the neighbour and felt it was for her landlord to investigate. She felt discriminated against and victimised. She added that the leak started over a week ago and varied in quantity. She felt the landlord should be responsible for any damage to her furniture. Officer B replied that it would send a caretaker as neither officer A or B was on site. The resident reported that officer B was on site and had promised to resolve the issue. Officer A wrote again to state that it had spoken to the neighbour regarding “the leak” who reported the matter to repairs.
The next day, officer A wrote to state he wished to address her allegations. He asked for further details as to why she was alleging discrimination and a failure of service. The resident replied to state she had sent a number of emails which she had had to chase. She stated that officer B had lied, stating he was not on site when in fact he was. She stated that officers A and B ignored her emails. She had blocked officer A on “WhatsApp” as she felt he was “watching her updates”. Lastly, the landlord was “constantly” telling her to do things which the landlord should be itself doing e.g contacting the neighbour to resolve the leak.
Officer A replied on the same day. He apologised and said it was best to email rather than telephone officers A and B. Officer B did not lie and explained how the nature of the job meant the officers had to move around and they were not always aware of the other’s whereabouts. He did not know how the resident obtained his personal number but it was not the correct number to use. When there was an “internal” issue, the resident should contact the landlord’s office, however he was happy to liaise by email.
The resident replied on the same day, 5 November 2020. Her view was that officer B had ‘lied’ to her and officer A had provided his personal number to landlord staff due to a signal issue. The following day, she provided evidence that she said was a message from his personal mobile phone.
On 11 November 2020, the landlord arranged to investigate the leak from the upstairs flat.
On 18 November 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident referring to a telephone conversation the “previous Monday” with a complaint response as follows:
1. It referred to a discussion on the telephone on “Monday” regarding the complaint.
2. After the resident had contacted her housing officer on 5 November 2020 to report that her balcony furniture was damaged as a result of a leak from her neighbour above’s balcony, officer A confirmed that a paddling pool was being used in the balcony above. As a result, in the previous week, the landlord asked the neighbour to stop using the pool on the balcony immediately. The landlord informed the neighbour that the landlord would recharge any resulting works. A repair was arranged for 20 November 2020 as the earliest date. The landlord invited the resident to report any further “ASB”. In relation to how the resident obtained the personal mobile number of officer A, the resident should contact the landlord for repair issues. It apologised that she felt unsupported by officers A and B on this occasion but hoped the matter had been resolved.
According to the landlord’s records, the landlord telephoned the resident on 18 November 2020 who confirmed that an operative had attended her property that day in order to investigate the leak in the balcony. The operative had told her that they would need to gain access to the neighbour above to carry further investigations and would report back their findings. It told the resident to report any issues to the repairs team so it could prioritise it in in terms of urgency. She could make the officers A and B aware if a repair was not completed. The resident stated she was happy to bring the complaint to a close.
On 26 November 2020, the landlord’s contractor reported to the landlord that there were large water stains on the decking. It offered to provide an estimate for the repairs. It reported that the resident had told them the property above had been “emptying large amount of water from a swimming pool” and it had been coming through the panelling and leaking onto the decking below.
On 2 December 2020, according to the landlord’s internal email, Team C asked Team D to raise a report to rectify the damage, given it was damage and not a defect.
Team B wrote to the resident on 4 December 2020 to state that repairing the water stains on the decking was not an emergency repair and she should report the issue when repairs were “back to normal”. The health and safety of its colleagues and residents was its top priority. Following Government guidance, it had paused its programme of planned maintenance until further notice and had made the decision to implement an emergency-only repairs service. The landlord would contact the resident “in due course” to arrange a new appointment for repairs but there would be a backlog. It invited her to contact it if it became an emergency. There would be regular updates on the website.
On 4 December 2020, the resident reported that the matter had got worse as the leak had damaged the ceiling, the decking and “ruined” her balcony furniture. It was therefore an emergency considering that it had caused significant damage and had exacerbated her medical conditions.
On 6 December 2020, the resident wrote again to ask to make a formal complaint against housing officers A and B for failing to take appropriate measures to prevent her upstairs neighbour from causing significant damage to her balcony furniture and decking and damage to the ceiling, including rust and mould. The leak had been increasing. She was tired of having to clear the water that the leak generated several times each day. She said that her health had deteriorated significantly.
She wrote again on the same day to state that the officers “feigned ignorance” of the issue. She felt victimised and discriminated against.
According to the landlord’s internal email on 7 December 2020, it was undertaking emergency and critical repairs at the time and queried whether the repair was needed under these grounds e.g. dangerous to health and safety.
According to the landlord, on 7 December 2020 the resident reported that she had water pouring over her balcony from above, which had made a hole in the balcony ceiling and made her furniture and the balcony mouldy. She stated that she was in the vulnerable category so could not go out and use the balcony to get fresh air. The damp was getting into her property. There was no point in carrying out a repair until the upstairs neighbour had stopped using an inflatable pool on their balcony. The resident did not wish to deal with officer A she had reported had looked at her status updates on WhatsApp. She further wrote that she felt that officers A and B had delayed matters by reporting the issue to the wrong team. The following day, the landlord contacted the resident to inform her that one of the officers would contact her later that day or the following day.
On 9 December 2020, the landlord treated the report as a complaint and wrote to the resident and confirmed the issues were :
1. The officers A and B had poorly handled her reports of water misuse by a neighbour.
2. Her balcony was damaged as a result of the water being thrown by a neighbour.
3. She wanted the leak stopped and damage repaired.
4. She wanted reimbursement for her damaged balcony furniture.
The landlord said that it would respond by 22 December 2020. It reminded her of her rights to discuss her complaint with this service at any time.
The resident replied on the same day to state that it was officer A and B who had identified the cause of the leak.
On 16 December 2020, the landlord noted that the builders would not be carrying out the repair as the property had been out of warranty for two years. The landlord itself would need to deal with the matter.
On 21 December 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident with its first stage response as follows:
1. Officers A and/or B had contacted the neighbour and apologised for previously having misinformed the resident. The water spillage was stopped shortly after their contact. It considered that the officer took appropriate action on receipt of the resident’s reports and this was evidenced by the water ingress stopping.
2. It invited the resident to provide photographs of the reported damage and state what steps she took to reduce any items being affected by water ingress, and the damage to the balcony. It would then consider the issue further.
3. It would organise an inspection of the balcony in the new year, however, this would be dependent on how urgent the landlord deemed this matter.
4. If the resident was not happy with the outcome, she could request the complaint be escalated, giving her reasons.
The resident wrote on 21 December 2020 that the outcome of the investigations was “based on falsehood.” The leak had not completely stopped. The engineer from the contractor had already taken the pictures of the damage caused by the use of the inflatable pool. She objected to the landlord insisting that it was she who had identified the cause of the leak, rather than the landlord and felt victimised as a result. While she accepted the damage did not come under the warranty, she was of the view the balcony was still under warranty. She said that the officers had told her that they had reported the matter to the wrong team. She requested the complaint be escalated. The resident wrote again the same day to add that the engineer who had attended her property stated that the leak has caused severe damage to her balcony ceiling and to the floor decking.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s four emails on 22 December 2020 and agreed to escalate the complaint. It stated that it had replied within the correct timescale of 10 working days as the complaint was registered on 9 December 2020 and it had responded on 21 December 2020. It would respond in 10 working days, however, if more time was needed, it would extend the response time by a further 10 working days and inform the resident accordingly.
A manager of the landlord wrote to the resident on 23 December 2020 to state allegations about staff misconduct were investigated internally by the Senior Management team and were not dealt with via the formal complaints system. Her allegations and comments about individual staff have been noted and would be subject to internal review, the outcome of which would remain confidential. The email stated that the tone of the resident’s emails, language used and accusatory statements about individual members of staff were not acceptable and the language used was unwarranted and unnecessary.
The resident wrote again on 23 December 2020, asking whether the manager and officer A were related to one another as they shared the same surname and that would be a conflict of interest. She also required evidence of the landlord’s processes that a complaint about officers would have to be dealt with in a specific way as described.
On 19 January 2021, the resident wrote to state she was unhappy about the delay to the second stage response and it had been almost two months since the complaint was escalated. She considered this was an alliance against her. The landlord had not denied that two of the officers were related and the manager had contacted her in order to intimidate her. She felt it was irrelevant that the complaints officer had contracted Covid-19. She also reported that the leak was still ongoing.
The resident wrote on 22 January 2021 reporting that the landlord informed her it would not be proceeding with the second stage of her complaint. She was also informed that certain staff members would not be investigated as they were senior management staff. She felt officer A or B had tampered with the process.
The landlord replied on the same day to state that it was dealing with the complaint but was unable to commence the review immediately and would be considering the case “soon”.
On 27 January 2021, Team C requested a contractor’s quote for the works at the resident’s property for approval by Team E.
On 28 January 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident in relation to her complaint. It would reply in 20 working days or sooner. It Invited the resident to submit any relevant correspondence, which she did on 4 February 2021.
The landlord wrote on 10 February 2021 with its second response to the resident‘s complaint as follows:

The resident had contacted the landlord on 7 December 2020, to express concern about water leaking on to the balcony from above. Officer B contacted her on 8 December 2020 by telephone to say the officers were on site and would address the pool issue.
A contractor had reported the leak on 11 November 2020 as a result of which the contractor attended the resident’s home on 26 November 2020, when the resident informed the contractor of the leak.
The landlord did not contact the neighbour until after her report on the 7 December 2020.
Her claim for damage to her balcony furniture was outside the remit of landlord’s complaints process and would be dealt with by insurers. This is because liability issues were subject to “insurance investigation” and therefore should “follow financial claim protocols”. She would have to make a claim under her own insurance or, if she had none, apply to the landlord’s insurers. It set out what evidence would be required, including photographs and the reason why she held the landlord responsible.
It found the comments about family relationships between its staff unjustified, inappropriate and had no bearing on the customer service provided. It had found no evidence to suggest anyone acted in an unreasonable or inappropriate manner, so it did not uphold that aspect of the complaint.
It acknowledged that the contractor was aware of the leak from the balcony on 11 November 2020, and the landlord could have contacted the neighbour after receiving the report on 26 November 2020. It stated this was not a significant gap between the report and contact being made with the neighbour, on 8 December 2020.
It offered compensation of £50 to recognise contact could have been made with the neighbour “slightly” sooner following the report from its contractors on the 26 November 2020, any distress the leak caused her and the delay in commencement of the stage 2 review and the time and effort invested in contacting the landlord.
It would arrange for contractors to attend to assess, quote and repair the balcony damage. It was unable to provide a timescale for repairs but had requested she be kept informed.

On 10 February 2021, the resident wrote to state she was not told the leak had stopped and she would be in a position to judge. She was informed that a repair job has been raised which was never carried out. The leak was ongoing. The neighbour might have stopped using the pool, but the damage had become too serious. She also wrote to say that the water was still leaking “on a daily basis”.
On 11 February 2021, she wrote to say that the leak was reported on 4 November 2020. She contacted the repairs team on 7 December 2020 who stated it was not an emergency.
The landlord replied on 11 February 2021 to state that the landlord’s complaint procedure was closed. It also wrote on the same date to state that another contractor would be dealing with the matter. It would need to inspect the current decking and the flat above to ascertain where the leak was stemming from and carry out a thorough inspection, in the interest of preventing any further instances of this leak.
On 17 February 2021, the contractor reported to the landlord that it had carried out an inspection that day. Its operative lifted the decking and inspected the balcony above. There was no sign of any damage that would indicate water penetrating the balcony. It inspected a leak in the extractor vent fitted in the ceiling panels, which was where the leak came from that the resident had reported. It found a lot of water sitting in the ducting pipe, caused by condensation build-up of warm air mixing with the outside air. In addition, the fan was not turned on in the property and therefore could not expel the warm air as it should have been. After cleaning up the vent, it reassembled it and fitted the fan back to the ceiling panel. It also turned it on and carried out a test to ensure it was working, which it showed the resident.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak onto her balcony.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of 4 November 2020 was appropriate, given it promptly addressed it. The evidence showed that officer A responded to the resident on receipt of that report. While it is not entirely clear from the evidence at what point he did so, as his email 4 November 2020 only refers to discussing a leak with the neighbour, he identified that the cause of the “leak” or water escape was the upstairs neighbour using a paddling pool on the balcony and asked the neighbour to stop using it. According to the landlord’s letter of 18 November 2020, officer A had already contacted the neighbour the week “previously” and had asked the neighbour to stop using the pool on the balcony. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that officer A had spoken to the neighbour within a reasonable timeframe of the resident’s report. The landlord also acted reasonably by arranging, in a matter of a few days, that a contractor would investigate the balcony on 18 November 2020. It was reasonable to assume therefore that at that stage the issue had been resolved and what remained was to address any disrepair to the balcony.
It is noted that the version of events described in the second complaint response was inaccurate. It stated that the initial report was made on 7 December 2020 and the landlord only contacted the neighbour after the resident made that report. There was no evidence that the initiative for the inspection was the contractor’s as opposed to the landlord. The evidence showed that the landlord became aware of the leak, or escape of water, on 4 November 2020 and acted upon the resident’s report shortly after. This report will comment further on this discrepancy below.
However, the responsibility for the repair identified by the contractor was referred from team to team. The evidence indicated that the landlord would attend to a repair if it was a building defect under guarantee, but not if it was non-urgent. While the landlord went some way to communicate the landlord’s approach to the repair to the resident, the issues of different teams would have been confusing and frustrating for the resident and required clearer explanation.
The resident reported that the landlord had carried out non-urgent repairs during lockdown so she felt the decision to treat the repair as non-urgent was not logical. However, the Ombudsman has only identified one non-urgent repair that was dealt with during lockdown promptly, of a report relating to loose and missing doorknobs.
It was unreasonable that the landlord promised a repair on 20 November 2020 but this did not materialise. Indeed, it was not clear on what basis that promise was made, given the lockdown restrictions that were in force at that time. The landlord did not update the resident or provide an explanation. However, given the contractor identified that there were water stains to the decking and not leaking at the time of their inspection, it was reasonable for the landlord to treat the repair as non-urgent and to delay it until undertaking repairs was “back to normal”.
However, it was inappropriate of the landlord not to have investigated the property again after the resident subsequently reported on a number of occasions that there was an ongoing leak. She may have attributed the leak to the upstairs property, however that was for the landlord to inspect and identify. It should have made its own enquiries. While the landlord intended to inspect the balcony in due course, the further report was not addressed until 17 February 2021, and even at that time, the inspection was on the assumption the leak had ceased. This would have been frustrating for the resident, in particular as she reported she was not able to use the balcony due to a leak and she was deemed to be vulnerable.
While the Ombudsman does not investigate events that occurred after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaints procedure, it can take into account events that are closely related.
It was appropriate for the landlord, through its contractor, to identify the cause of the fresh leak due to an extractor fan. While the issue was due to the resident not turning the fan on, which would have been her responsibility, had the landlord reinspected sooner, it would have identified the fresh cause of the leak and advised the resident accordingly. Given the resident reported the leak was ongoing on 6 December 2020 onwards, there was effectively a delay of over two months before it was attended to. The landlord deemed a “slow leak” to be an urgent repair, which the landlord should have considered attending, as it may have been an issue that it should have inspected even when restrictions were in place, in particular as full lockdown had ended at that time.
The Ombudsman concludes from the evidence there were water stains to the decking but there was no evidence of other damage. This was evidenced by the contractor only referring to “large water stains” and then identifying on 11 February 2020 that there was no balcony ceiling damage consistent with a leak from the upstairs balcony. In any event, the landlord had agreed to remedy the damage. The landlord’s decision to bear the costs in the first instance of the repairs to the decking was reasonable and appropriate, in particular as the initial damage was due to a third party, rather than referring the resident to making a claim against the upstairs neighbour. A landlord is in a better position to effect repairs and recharge them to the party responsible for the damage. Furthermore, there was nothing in the policy that indicated it should do otherwise.
The landlord responded promptly in relation to the resident’s report and the evidence showed the leak from the upstairs flat ceased. It was reasonable to treat the water stains as a non-urgent repair, however the landlord did not respond promptly to the resident’s further reports of a leak, which the evidence showed was due to an extractor fan. This caused a delay of some two months and in that respect, there was service failure on the part of the landlord.
The Ombudsman recognises the frustration for the resident and her report of the impact on her use of the balcony during lockdown. However, the impact of the service failure was of short duration, therefore any compensation will be at the lower end of the Ombudsman’s awards.

The resident’s reports of staff conduct, including victimisation and discrimination.

The resident’s complaint about staff conduct was based on her view officer B had lied about officer A’s whereabouts, neither officer had taken any action regarding her report, officer A had given the resident his personal number and he was watching her social media updates, and, finally, officer A was related to a manager, and the manager had intimidated her by email on 23 December 2020.
In the Ombudsman’s view, it was reasonable of the landlord to suggest a resident alert a neighbour of a leak in order to reduce any damage as that would be the most expedient way to alert the neighbour who may not have been aware of the problem. Officer A’s explanation that the officers were not always aware of each other’s whereabouts was reasonable and the evidence does not show anything but that, at most, officer B made an honest mistake. The landlord did not clarify the issue of officer A’s telephone number, however there was no evidence of malicious misuse. However, the landlord’s officers should refer allegations of discrimination or misconduct to a manager or its complaints team and seek guidance whether to respond themselves.
Equally, there was no evidence of a conflict of interest between the manager and officer A. While there was no absolute requirement to explain whether the two individuals were related or not, it may have been more transparent to consider providing the information either way, given the main issue was whether there was a conflict of interest, not whether the staff members were related. The landlord acted reasonably by reassuring the resident that there was no unprofessional behaviour. In any event, the Ombudsman notes that the manager was not involved in the complaints process, except to explain to the resident how the landlord handled staff complaints.
The manager, in his email of 23 December 2020, acted reasonably in setting out the landlord’s policy in relation to complaints about staff. While it was reasonable of the landlord to ask the resident to moderate her manner of communication, the landlord needed to clarify what its objections were and its reasons. However, the Ombudsman does not take the view that setting out its policy and asking the resident to moderate her tone was evidence of intimidation.
While in the same email, the landlord reassured the resident that it had noted the resident’s allegations about the staff, the email, as the policy, may have given the impression the landlord would not address complaints against staff at all. If the aim of the policy was to make clear it would not share what action it would take in relation to staff, which would be reasonable as this would not be a matter for the resident, should a complaint be upheld, then it should say so clearly. However, the landlord did, in fact, consider the complaint against the staff members and it set out its findings in the second complaint response.
While communication could have been improved, the Ombudsman did not find evidence of victimisation, intimidation or discrimination in the landlord’s dealing with the resident. It responded to her reports of a leak appropriately and acted reasonably in seeking to modify the resident’s tone and setting out its complaints policy, and there was no evidence of the landlord deliberately misleading the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling, including the level of compensation.

The resident wished to be compensated for her damage to her belongings and for the effects on her health. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider a landlord’s responses to reports by residents, and whether they are reasonable and appropriate and in line with its legal obligations and policies.
The Ombudsman cannot assess the extent to which a landlord’s service failure or maladministration has contributed to or exacerbated a complainant’s physical and/or mental health. It cannot assess medical evidence and does not make findings on matters such as negligence. However, the Ombudsman may set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant by a particular service failure by a landlord.
The Ombudsman does not make findings of negligence leading to damage to possessions. It does not make orders of compensation in the way that a court may order a payment of damages. While there are circumstances where it may be fair and proportionate for this service to order compensation to the value of any damaged property/belongings as redress in such cases where service failure has been determined, there is insufficient evidence here for the Ombudsman to make a such determination.
According to the landlord’s complaint policy the times scale for response at the first stage of 10 days should be calculated from the date of the complaint was made, not logged. While the first response was sent to the resident within the complaints policy timescales, the second response was delayed. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not update the resident, as stated in its policy and correspondence, should there be a delay. Moreover, the landlord should have calculated the response time from the date the complaint was escalated. However, it reasonably recognised its delay in its second complaint response. Its eventual explanation that the member of staff dealing with the matter was ill with Covid was reasonable. As a matter of good practice, however, a landlord should seek to agree any extension of time with the resident.
The chronology in the second complaint response was not accurate, as described above. While this led the landlord to apologise unnecessarily for a delay which did not occur (in contacting the neighbour upstairs regarding his pool), the evidence showed that the inaccuracies increased the resident’s frustration, as evidenced by her emails seeking to point out inaccuracies in the landlord’s correspondence.
The timeline in the second stage response differed to that in the first response and its own records. While it was noted the complaints team sought to undertake a full review, it is reasonable to conclude that the errors were due to poor record keeping which may have also accounted for the discussions the different teams had dealing with the matter. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
It was, however, reasonable of the landlord to refer the resident to the landlord’s insurers in relation to the damage to her possessions and that it was not dealt with under its complaints procedure. While the explanation it gave was somewhat opaque, referring to “financial claim protocols”, it was reasonable to refer the resident to insurers in order to assess the landlord’s liability. If the resident was not happy with the outcome, she would need to seek legal advice and/or make a claim under her own insurance, if she had any. It is noted that the landlord’s policy does not address claims for damage to possessions, except by contractors. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
It was not reasonable to refer the resident to her own insurer in the first instance while there was a dispute about whose fault the damage was. Claims made on a policy may affect the complainant’s future premium and/or require then to pay an excess. It would be open to a resident to make a claim under their own insurance (if they had any) if a claim against a third party did not succeed.
It is noted that the first complaint response asked for evidence of the resident’s losses. The invitation may have set up an expectation in the resident. The landlord should have made it clear from the outset that it would refer any claim for damaged possessions to insurance, if that was its policy.
There were a number of issues which may have been minor in themselves, (including the confusion over repair teams, the incorrect chronology, not being kept fully updated) but which, together, would have increased the resident’s frustration that amounted to service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
The landlord recognised its delays in relation to the complaints response and the resident’s distress due to the leak. However, the compensation offered did not reflect the failures identified in this report, including the failure of the landlord to communicate and the inaccuracies contained in the second response in particular. While it caused frustration for the resident, it did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident and, therefore, again, any compensation will be at the lower end of the Ombudsman’s awards.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak onto her balcony.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response in relation to the resident’s reports of staff conduct, including victimisation and discrimination.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling, including the level of compensation.

Reasons

While the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report of the leak was appropriate in that it was prompt and effective, it did not investigate the resident’s subsequent reports until two months after. The landlord’s response led to a delay in identifying and resolving the issue with the fan.
While communication could have been improved, the Ombudsman did not find evidence of victimisation, intimidation or discrimination in its dealing with the resident. It responded to her reports of a leak appropriately and acted reasonably in seeking to modify the resident’s tone and setting out its complaints policy, and there was no evidence of the landlord deliberately misleading the resident.
The response to the resident’s complaint contained inaccuracies and did not fully address the resident’s issues she raised. While it went some way to recognise its delays, the compensation of £50 does not address the delay to a fresh inspection and incidences of poor communication.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay within 28 days the resident compensation in the amount of £300 in addition to the £50 already offered as follows:

£200 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak onto her balcony.
The landlord pays the resident £100 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling, including the level of compensation.

The landlord should confirm compliance to the Housing Ombudsman service with the above orders within 28 days of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes recommendations to the landlord as follows:

The relevant teams should be encouraged to consider the resident’s repair history and be enquiring in its response to what may appear to be repeat reports of repairs.
The landlord’s officers should refer allegations of discrimination or misconduct appertaining to themselves to a manager and/or its complaints team and seek guidance whether to respond to themselves.
In light of the findings in this report, the landlord reviews its records management, ensuring that records are accessible and comprehensive so that the landlord can track its own actions and communicate better between teams and with residents.
The landlord should share with its complaints team this report and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in particular in relation to timescales.
The landlord should consider amending the wording of its complaints policy in relation to complaints regarding staff in order to reduce misunderstandings.
The landlord should consider amending its compensation policy to address damage to possessions and damage to decoration, such as recourse to an insurance claim. The landlord may consider the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to insurance. https://hos.dev.civiccomputing.com/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/guidance-on-complaints-involving-insurance/