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

Guinness Housing Association Limited (202005343)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005343

Guinness Housing Association Limited

26 February 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

  1. The complaint concerns:
    1. The level of compensation offered by the landlord following a leak and ceiling collapse in the resident’s property.
    2. The level of compensation offered by the landlord’s insurance provider for the damage caused by the leak.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. On 28 April 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and expressed her dissatisfaction with the level of compensation awarded to her by its insurance provider.
  3. Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaints-handling body.
  4. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has the jurisdiction to consider complaints about insurers and insurance claims. As the FOS is the proper body that deals with such matters, the Ombudsman will not consider the handling and/or the outcome of the insurance claim within this report in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. which is a housing association. The property is a maisonette in a communal building. The resident has been represented by her daughter during this complaint. For reasons of clarity, both the resident and her daughter have been collectively referred to as ‘the resident’ within this report.
  2. On 20 January 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to express her dissatisfaction with how it had handled ongoing repairs to resolve a leak in the property. The resident noted that despite numerous visits by operatives over the prior months, the leak had always returned. She also described the inconvenience the situation had caused the household, and the damage to her personal items from water ingress.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 21 January 2020 and informed her that the matter had been passed to its complaints team.
  4. On 22 January 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to inform it that the leak had reoccurred the previous day. She said she had reported the issue and an operative inspected the ceiling, although no work was undertaken. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction to the landlord with how its contractor was handling the matter.
  5. On 23 January 2020 the living room ceiling in the property collapsed as a result of the leak. The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 January 2020 to request information on the decant process while repairs were to be undertaken. She asked for a survey to be completed prior to the work starting. A surveyor visited the property on 24 January 2020.
  6. Between 11 February 2020 and 22 February 2020, the resident and landlord corresponded and discussed issues relating to switching hotels during the decant period, the ongoing work at the property to repair the ceiling, and compensation. On 21 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident and informed her that its insurers would “pick up costs for property damage as well as stress and inconvenience” and that the landlord would consider the costs accrued by the resident and family members while they were decanted.
  7. On 2 April 2020 the landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident. It confirmed that its insurer was assessing a claim which would cover the damage caused by the leak and “potentially stress and inconvenience”. The landlord updated the resident on the current status of the work, informing her that the old bathroom in the property would be removed and a wet room installed. The landlord concluded the response by upholding the complaint on the grounds of the poor service received.
  8. On 24 April 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding compensation. It acknowledged that its insurers had agreed to pay for the damaged items and expenses during the decant period. It said it would offer a further £200 goodwill gesture, because the insurers would only consider the damage caused by the leak, and not the other intangible impacts on the resident.
  9. . It said that in deciding on £200 it had:

“taken into consideration that the leak had been on-going for 11 months before you made the complaint and then an additional 9 weeks whilst the new bathroom was being fitted and other remedial work was done. Additionally, I have considered the fact that your sister is ill, your mum is elderly and this upheaval was no doubt distressing. Moreover, I know it’s been a difficult few months for you and your family since you lost your sister last year and I know from personal experience that the grief process is a rollercoaster of emotions and being comfortable at home would’ve made things easier, I’m sorry this wasn’t the case.”

  1. On 24 April 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested an escalation of the complaint, and a review of the compensation. The landlord replied on 28 April 2020 and increased its goodwill gesture to £250. It explained that it had used this Service’s remedies guidance as a base to calculate the compensation amount.
  2. The resident replied on 28 April 2020. She declined the landlord’s increased compensation offer. She said that £2,000 would be more “accurate and reasonable”.
  3. The landlord sent a stage two complaint response to the resident on 26 May 2020. It gave an update on how the outstanding work at the property was being affected by the current Covid-19 pandemic, and explained that its goodwill payment was calculated in line with its own compensation policy. It apologised for any confusion caused by references to this Service’s remedies guidance.
  4. The landlord said it could not “identify particular failures with the way the leaks have been dealt with. The amount paid was therefore a gesture of goodwill intended to help alleviate a difficult time, rather than a recognition of poor service”.
  5. The landlord then confirmed that the resident had exhausted its internal complaint process and advised her on the steps to take to bring her complaint to this Service should she remain dissatisfied.


Assessment and findings

  1. This Service has been provided with the Landlord’s internal correspondence and notes from the investigations undertaken at stage one and stage two of its complaint process.
  2. At stage one of the complaints process the landlord examined all work orders raised relating to the leak and concluded that its contractor had “handled this poorly by not identifying [the source of the leak] sooner”.
  3. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to award a goodwill gesture for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident, in addition to the insurance payment and decant expenses.
  4. Following receipt of the stage one response, the landlord and resident corresponded about the compensation award. The landlord referred to this Service’s remedies guidance and increased its award to £250. In its stage two response the landlord clarified that its award was made in line with its own compensation policy and stood by the amount offered.
  5. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the landlord’s complaints and compensation policy concern compensation and goodwill payments. It states as follows.

“11. We know how important it is to be honest and say sorry when we get things wrong. We also know we should let our customers know how we plan to put things right and we will always do so.

12. Sometimes this may involve a goodwill gesture or compensation. A goodwill gesture may be given where we agree we should have provided a better customer experience and we decide an apology alone would not be proportionate. Goodwill gestures are different to compensation payments. Those payments are used to recompense customers for actual evidenced loss or expenses incurred as a consequence of our actions or inactions.”

  1. However, the policy does not provide any guidance as to what actual level of compensation and/or goodwill gestures should be considered.
  2. The landlord showed good practice, when it considered the level of compensation to offer for the resident’s distress and inconvenience, by taking into account the specifics of the service failure (ongoing repair failures over a significant timeframe), the consequences of the failing (ceiling collapse and family decant), and the resident’s family’s trying circumstances, which would understandably have been added to by the events of the complaint. However, when considered against those factors, the level of compensation offered for the resident’s distress and inconvenience was disproportionately low. Accordingly, while the landlord’s decision to offer compensation was appropriate in the circumstances, the omission of a proportionate and reasonable level of compensation meant that the complaint remained unresolved.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the level of compensation it offered, following a leak and ceiling collapse in the resident’s property.

Orders

  1. For the service failure and reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £250.
  2. This is in addition to the £250 compensation already offered by the landlord in its complaints process, which the landlord should also now pay if it hasn’t already.
  3. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.