Bromsgrove District Housing Trust Limited (202200932)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200932

Bromsgrove District Housing Trust

26 August 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

1. The complaint is about the amount of compensation offered by the landlord for the resident’s experience during the refurbishment of the kitchen at the property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord living in a 2 bedroomed flat since 2011. The landlord is a Housing Trust.
3. In January 2021, the landlord refurbished the kitchen at the property under a planned maintenance programme and organised its contractors to carry out the work.
4. After the refurbishment was completed, the resident complained about a number of issues:
   1. The start date of the refurbishment was rescheduled at short notice.
   2. The contractor did not respect the rules provided by the resident relating to her working and home arrangements.
   3. The resident was disrupted on multiple occasions whilst trying to work from home which was distressing as the resident was in the probation period of a new job.
   4. The storage area was not fully covered by the protective floor covering and was damaged.
   5. A workman wore dirty boots on the carpet and entered the resident’s son room whilst he was sleeping.
   6. Items were delivered and stored in unsuitable locations.
   7. The resident felt rushed to decide on flooring.
   8. Rubbish was discarded in the resident’s garden.
   9. The gas meter door was broken and left on the floor.
   10. Takeaways were the residents only option for dinner as the kitchen was dusty and unusable on multiple occasions.
   11. The resident had to raise issues to have the kitchen finished to an acceptable standard.
   12. There were days when no workmen arrived or were late.
   13. The workmen did not clean the kitchen after the refurbishment.
   14. The refurbishment took longer than it should have.
5. The landlord upheld the complaint points and offered the resident £575 in compensation in recognition of time and trouble, loss of facilities, and damage to the storage room flooring.
6. The resident was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered and escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process.
7. Shortly after the resident’s escalation request, the resident experienced a leak from her washing machine. The resident stated this happened because it had been incorrectly plumbed in by the landlord’s contractor during the kitchen refurbishment.
8. The landlord took this into consideration and incorporated the matter into its stage 2 response. The Ombudsman finds this was a sensible approach for the landlord to take. In recognition of the washing machine leak, the landlord’s response was to offer an additional £105 in compensation, taking the total amount of compensation offered to £680.
9. The resident does not believe the compensation offered by the landlord reflects the inconvenience and damage caused during the refurbishment and remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final compensation offer and escalated the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.
10. To resolve the issue the resident would like increased compensation for damage, stress, and inconvenience.

Scope of Investigation

11. The landlord did not dispute the issues and upheld the resident’s complaint at both stages of its complaint process. Therefore, this investigation will not examine the detail and circumstances of the complaint but will seek to examine whether the compensation amounts offered by the landlord at stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaints process were reasonable and fair in the circumstances and in line with its compensation policy and procedure.

Assessment and findings

12. The landlord has a detailed compensation policy and procedure with prescribed amounts of compensation payable in the event of service failure, delay to repair works being completed, loss of facilities, time and trouble, and damage to goods/belongings/decoration. The landlord’s policy states it will “consider all factors relevant to each individual claim.”
13. The landlord upheld the 14 complaints points at stages 1 and 2 of its complaints process. The Ombudsman has reviewed the details of the complaints and considers that 12 of the resident’s complaint points amount to ‘service failure’ according to the landlord’s compensation guide, 1 complaint amounts to ‘loss of other services/facilities to the home’ and 1 complaint amounts to financial loss (cost of takeaway meals).
14. The landlord’s compensation guide states £15 should be paid where there is a service failure. Therefore, this calculates as 12 occasions of service failure at £15 totalling £180.00.
15. The landlord’s compensation guide states “time and trouble payments will not exceed an amount equal to 100% of the value of one weeks’ rent”. Therefore, the maximum compensation payable to the resident for ‘time and trouble’ calculates as £105.13.
16. Complaint point 14 was the kitchen refurbishment took longer than it should have. The documents provided demonstrate the refurbishment had a scheduled end date of 24 January 2022 but due to the issues complained about, the landlord and resident were not able to agree completion of the works until 11 March 2022.This means the refurbishment took 45 calendar days longer than scheduled.
17. The landlord’s compensation guide states “A lump sum award of £15 plus the equivalent of one day’s rent will be paid for each whole day the tenant is without the facility beyond the specified target completion date. Rooms Include, living rooms, bedrooms, kitchen, and bathroom.
18. The compensation guide states the formula to calculate the compensation award is A x B x C + £15. A= Number of rooms in the home affected by the service failure as a % of all rooms in the home. B= Sum Equivalent to Daily (Weekly rent/7). C= Number of calendar days service/facility is not available beyond the target repair timescale
19. The Ombudsman is informed the weekly rent at the time was £105.13. This means the daily rent was £15.02.  Based on the number of rooms in the property, the daily rent, and the number of days beyond the timescale. The calculation for the compensation award is £15.02 x 20% x 45. Therefore, the compensation award due for the kitchen refurbishment going beyond the specified target date was £135.16 + £15 making a total of £150.16.
20. The resident also complained that takeaways were her only option for dinner as the kitchen was too dusty to use. The landlord did not address this part of the resident’s complaint and appears not to have invited the resident to provide receipts or evidence her expenditure.
21. The compensation due to the resident for the delayed refurbishment, service failures, and time and trouble according to the landlord’s compensation guide was £435.29.  comprised of:
    1. £150.16 for delayed refurbishment
    2. £180 for service failures x 12
    3. £105.13 for time and trouble

In the stage 1 complaint response the landlord offered £575

22. At stage 2 the landlord increased the offer by £105.00 to reflect the washing machine issue that occurred during the complaints process taking the total compensation offer to £680. The landlord sought to put things right by making a final offer of compensation of £680 but overlooked the resident’s expenditure on takeaways.

27. The landlord’s compensation guide for staff states, “If actual loss or damage is claimed we will need to have some sort of quantifiable evidence of the loss suffered, e.g. receipt of purchase. If a customer is struggling with this get advice from the Business Improvement Team on what we will accept”.

28. In this case the landlord did not ask for proof of the resident’s expenditure on take away food at any stage of the complaints process. Because of this omission the Ombudsman cannot establish if the compensation offered by the landlord was fair and reasonable even though at face value the compensation offered was in excess of the landlord’s compensation guide.
29. In respect of the compensation it did offer, it did not set out the basis of its calculations other than to state the compensation was to ‘reflect the overall experience’. This description was not transparent enough. When a landlord seeks to put things right by awarding compensation it must clearly set out the basis of its calculations. When it fails to do this, it is harder for the landlord to demonstrate its compensation awards are fair and consistent in all cases.
30. Had the landlord properly assessed and compensated the resident for the expenditure in respect of buying takeaway food, the Ombudsman may have been able to make a finding of reasonable redress. However, it did not do this, accordingly, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the compensation it offered the resident.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 52(c) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the amount of compensation offered by the landlord for the resident’s experience during the refurbishment of the kitchen at the property.

Orders

32. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should pay the resident £880 compensation. This comprises:
    1. £680 offered at stage 2 of the complaint procedure if it has not already been paid.
    2. £200 for failing to comply with its own process in respect of considering the resident’s expenditure on takeaways. If the residentcan provide ‘some sort of quantifiable evidence’ of further expenditure over £200, then the landlord should consider this in accordance with its policy.
33. The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with this order.

Recommendations

37. The landlord should ensure it provides a detailed breakdown and/or reasoning of its compensation awards in future cases.