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

First Choice Homes Oldham Limited (202213335)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213335

First Choice Homes Oldham Limited

27 October 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to replace his floor covering and underlay.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a first floor flat.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 January 2022 and raised a stage 1 complaint, stating that there were outstanding repairs to his property’s flooring that were caused by his downstairs neighbour’s faulty boiler. The neighbour was also a tenant of the landlord. The resident said that his hallway had “collapsed”, and that his laminate flooring was “bubbling”. He stated that the landlord did not seem to care about his request and that he desired compensation and a call back.
  3. On 14 January 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the inconvenience that the resident felt and its assumption that his initial complaint was in relation to his boiler. It confirmed that, after its conversation with him, the complaint was regarding his flooring being damaged due to heat from the boiler in the property below his. Also, the resident had stated that an inspector and joiner had attended the property, and that the joiner had stated that they were unable to complete the job. The landlord continued that it had investigated and reviewed the complaint with its assets team and had arranged another inspection of the resident’s property for 11 February 2022, after which it would advise him what works had been ordered and when these would be completed.
  4. The landlord’s internal correspondence in January 2022 then confirmed that the resident’s downstairs neighbour’s boiler had not experienced a breakdown since 2019. It therefore considered that this could not have caused the issues with the resident’s flooring. This was also because the landlord stated that the resident had reported that his floor was lifting prior to 2018. Although he explained that the neighbour’s boiler had caused his hallway floor to rot from that date, and he provided photographs of this. The landlord arranged an inspection of the resident’s flooring on 11 February 2022, and he then chased it for the outcome of the inspection until March 2022.
  5. On 8 March 2022, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure. This was because he was dissatisfied that its inspector had reported that they had only found old staining on the underlay beneath his laminate flooring, and that they did not believe that there was an issue with the floorboards that had dried out. The inspector therefore only recommended a kitchen door repair and the filling of a hole around a gas entry pipe at the property for 28 February 2022.
  6. The resident nevertheless disputed this, explaining that the faulty boiler below had caused him to take his flooring up, as the underlay had rotted away to make the flooring feel like there was a hole. He also reported that the landlord had previously told him that it would reimburse him for the damage. Although it then told the resident that it had found no issues with the floorboards, and that these would not have caused issues with his laminate flooring that he was responsible for under its policy, so it would not reimburse him for the damage to this.
  7. The landlord provided its final stage complaint response on 4 April 2022. It stated that the resident’s complaint was regarding the flooring and draughts coming into the property. It stated that the initial complaint was due to his downstairs neighbour’s boiler overflowing in 2018, reportedly causing the resident’s floorboards to rot and laminate flooring to gape. The landlord continued that its inspection on 11 February 2022 had concluded that there were no signs of rotting floorboards, the insulation and laminate board would provide cover with no damage to the floor, and the underlay beneath was stained from a historic leak. It also explained that this had no impact on the performance of the insulation as this had dried out.
  8. Additionally, the landlord told the resident that it was his responsibility to cover damage to laminate flooring, or via his contents insurance, where it considered that there had been no negligence from it. This was in accordance with his tenancy agreement and its policy, and so it would not reimburse him for the damage, but it did agree to look into his reports of draughts at the property.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response and requested that the Ombudsman investigate the matter. He stated that the landlord had not taken into account that his complaint was a direct result of his downstairs neighbour’s faulty boiler in 2018. The resident also stated that he had reported that his floor was “squishy” and feared there was a leak. Further, he explained that, when he removed the floor covering prior to the landlord’s inspection, the underlay crumbled and his floor covering was damaged when he lifted the covering. The resident therefore asked for it to put him in the same position that he was in before the damage had occurred in order to resolve his complaint.
  10. The resident later told the Ombudsman that he had since arranged and paid for repairs to the flooring himself, and that the landlord had paid him a £50 goodwill gesture for this. It subsequently agreed to carry out a thermographic survey of the cold he reported at the property in 2023, if he agreed to leave his heating on from the night before.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has stated that the damage to his flooring was originally caused by his downstairs neighbour’s faulty boiler in 2018. The Ombudsman acknowledges his comments that there was a historic problem with this. However, from the evidence provided, the resident submitted his reports and formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of this on 5 January 2022. Therefore, this report will focus on the events in his case from that date onwards. This is because the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising. Any references to events prior to 2022 in the report are therefore for context only.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to replace his floor covering and underlay

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that some repairs will require a pre-inspection before the repair appointment can be arranged in order to establish the extent of the works. These inspections will be carried out by a repairs inspector, surveyor or a nominated contractor representative. This will be via an appointment agreed with the resident, and any identified repairs will then be completed within the appropriate timescale, including 20 working days for routine repairs.
  2. Also, the repairs and maintenance policy states that residents are advised not to lay fixed floor coverings, including laminate, due to the difficulty in removing them to carry out essential works without damaging the coverings. Where residents have installed fixed floor coverings, they are responsible for obtaining the correct noise insulation, contents insurance cover, and for removing these for works which the landlord deems essential.
  3. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the property’s floors in a good state of repair, and that he is responsible for repairing or renewing any items associated with alterations to the property carried out by him. This additionally states that its buildings insurance does not cover replacing his belongings or internal decorations, and that he is strongly advised to take out his own contents insurance to do so.
  4. Upon receiving the resident’s complaint and service request on 5 January 2022, it was appropriate for the landlord to carry out an investigation into this matter before repairing or replacing his laminate floor covering and underlay. This is because its repairs and maintenance policy stated that some works required a pre-inspection in advance in order to establish their extent. As part of this, it was also suitable for the landlord to establish what had occurred, and diagnose the repair issues, before deciding what action to proceed with.
  5. The landlord therefore acted reasonably by checking its repairs records to determine if the resident’s reports regarding his downstairs neighbour’s boiler damaging his flooring was correct. It concluded, after investigating its repair records, that the neighbour’s boiler that was fitted in 2018 was with a sealed system, so that this could not have boiled over. The landlord acted appropriately by carrying out a safety check on the neighbour’s boiler on 17 January 2022, when it found no faults with this. This was a satisfactory approach for it to take following the resident’s complaint and service request on 5 January 2022, and it did so within a reasonable time. This is because its initial response was within its repairs and maintenance policy’s routine repair timescale of 20 working days.
  6. The landlord then stated in its stage 1 complaint response that it planned to carry out an inspection of the resident’s flooring on 11 February 2022. In anticipation of its inspector attending the property, it asked him on 3 February 2022 if he could lift his flooring as it could not do so because he had installed laminate. This was in accordance with the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, which made the resident responsible for removing the flooring for its works. Nevertheless, the fact that he subsequently responded to it that he was struggling with health conditions that might impact his ability to remove the flooring himself meant that it was appropriate that it offered him support to do so. Although the landlord’s inspection then found that the resident had already removed the flooring himself.
  7. However, the landlord’s inspector subsequently identified that a repair or replacement was not needed for the resident’s flooring because they found only staining and not damage to the floorboards. This meant that it was not unreasonable for the landlord to decline to repair or replace the resident’s floor.
  8. The landlord was entitled to rely on the expert evidence of its inspector’s findings from when they visited the property. They confirmed that the insulation and laminate board would provide cover with no detriment to the performance of the floor. Also, the inspector confirmed that the underlay beneath the laminate floor covering was stained, suggesting a historic leak that did not impact on the performance of the insulation, as this had fully dried out. This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take in the circumstances, in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary.
  9. Moreover, the landlord acted fairly by advising the resident to claim under his own contents insurance cover, given that the flooring was installed by him, and not by it or at its request. This is additionally because his tenancy agreement strongly advised him to take out his own contents insurance to cover items such as his flooring, as its buildings insurance did not do so.
  10. Since the resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman, he has explained that the landlord paid him a goodwill gesture of £50 after he paid to replace his flooring himself. This was not something that it was obliged to do, and by doing so it displayed a willingness to resolve his concerns amicably and maintain its landlord-resident relationship with him. In the landlord’s correspondence with the resident, it also gave clear reasons for not replacing the floor covering and underlay, and it explained that this decision to do so was in line with its repairs and maintenance policy. Overall, there were therefore no failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his flooring.
  11. However, in order to try and resolve the resident’s complaint fully, it would have been preferable for the landlord to have given him details as to how to submit a liability claim to it or its insurers to seek a reimbursement for the cost to him of replacing his flooring himself. This is because he continued to maintain that the flooring was damaged by the condition of his downstairs neighbour’s boiler that it was responsible for, which meant that he felt that he had to replace the flooring.
  12. As the landlord disputed this, and the Ombudsman does not have the authority or expertise to determine liability or award damages for this in the way that a court or insurer might, it would have been best practice for the resident to have been appropriately signposted by the landlord to seek this. It has therefore been recommended to do so below, as well as to arrange a thermographic survey to try and resolve his concerns about draughts at the property, if it has not done so already.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to replace his floor covering and underlay.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Provide the resident with details as to how to submit a liability claim to it or its insurers to seek a reimbursement for the cost to him of replacing his flooring himself.
    2. Contact the resident to arrange for it to carry out a thermographic survey to try and resolve his concerns about draughts at the property, if it has not done so already.