Bristol City Council (201914973)

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914973

Bristol City Council

21 January 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 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:
   1. the level of redress offered by the landlord in respect of its acknowledged failings in carrying out works at the property,
   2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation in respect of the damaged carpet at the property, and
   3. the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a 3 bedroom semi-detached property which is owned and managed by the local authority landlord.
3. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 the landlord will provide its complaint response within 15 working days. If there is going to be a delay in responding, the landlord will inform the resident of the reasons for this, along with a revised date for a response.
4. On 17 December 2018 the landlord decanted the resident to temporary accommodation whilst it carried out major woodworm treatment and installed a wet room at the property. The landlord paid for the removal of all the resident’s belongings from the property to the decant property. The decant property was a relet which complied with the landlord’s void standards and the landlord put down carpet in all the rooms that didn’t already have flooring installed.
5. The resident says that she was told that she would be able to move back to the property in 6 to 12 weeks. On 24 June 2019 a member of the landlord’s staff sent an internal email saying that the resident had been asking about progress at the property as ‘no works have been done, she was meant to be moving back in today. The walls and ceilings still haven’t even been put up. She has an operation she is due to have which she has been postponing to accommodate for the move back …Please can she be given an update.’ The landlord’s voids supervisor replied the same day saying ‘I have given this tenant an update already today and can only apologise on behalf of the contractors. I am in contact with her every day. We have a number of issues with the contractors starting works.’
6. The resident returned to live in the property on 6 August 2019. The landlord paid for her belongings to be moved back to the property and for new carpet throughout the first floor and new plank flooring in the living room, kitchen and hallway. The landlord also paid the resident £80 to cover an extra charge from her carpet fitter who was fitting stair carpet and had to work around the landlord’s stair repairs. On moving back to the property, the resident informed the landlord that there were issues with a loose handrail, the bathroom window and the garden.
7. In October 2019 the resident reported a leak at the property. On 24 October 2019 the landlord visited the property and repaired the leak. That same day a member of the landlord’s staff sent an internal email, saying that the leak had been caused by its contractors not ‘notching out’ a new joist deep enough for the existing heating pipe work and the newly fitted chipboard flooring subsequently crushing the pipe. The landlord had had to tear the newly fitted carpet in the bedroom to repair the leak as its flooring contactors had stapled the carpet down, rather than gluing it down.
8. Further works were also identified that were carried out in January 2020.
9. On 19 November 2019 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord asking for compensation for having to move out of the property for an extended period of time and repairs still needing to be done once she had moved back in. The resident was also seeking compensation for damage to her furniture in the move: she said she had received compensation of £325 which she considered inadequate.
10. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it would provide a response by 10 December 2019. On 12 December 2019 and 2 January 2020, the resident sent further emails to the landlord, repeating her complaint and asking for a response.
11. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 6 January 2020. In its complaint response the landlord upheld the complaint and apologised for the delays, inconvenience and stress caused by the issues that the landlord had had with the contractors carrying out the work at the property. The landlord asked the resident to clarify who had provided the £325 compensation for damaged furniture that she had referred to in her complaint and to provide any pictures or evidence of the damage. The landlord also asked what amount of compensation she was seeking.
12. The resident sent an email to the landlord on 6 January 2020 saying that the £325 compensation for damage to her furniture had been paid to her by the removal company. The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 20 January 2020 asking for a response about compensation. The landlord replied the same day, informing the resident that if she would like further compensation for the damaged furniture, then she needed to approach the removal company as it was responsible for the damage. The landlord said that it would be able to provide a reasonable amount of compensation for the inconvenience she had experienced because of the delays in completing the works and asked her to advise it as to what she thought would be a fair and reasonable amount.
13. The resident replied to the landlord’s email on 20 January 2020 saying that she would rather the landlord suggested an amount of compensation and on 13 February 2020 the landlord sent the resident an email offering £250 compensation. The resident sent the landlord an email the same day saying that she didn’t think £250 was a fair amount for the disruption she had faced, and the carpet having been ruined.
14. On 14 February 2020 the landlord sent the resident an email saying: ‘You never mentioned about the carpets being ruined, they were all new carpets throughout before you moved in. Did you pay for new carpets?’. The resident replied the same day saying ‘£600 and bedroom carpet replaced like was arranged.’ Also the same day the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. In its response the landlord said that the resident had not provided any estimated amounts, or evidence of any loss or inconvenience caused, so it would not be making any payment over the £250 compensation already offered as it considered £250 compensation to be reasonable in recognition of the inconvenience she had suffered. The landlord added that, ‘It may be that a further offer can be made in respect of any quantifiable loss that you have suffered as a result of the work carried out in your home, but to allow the service to consider this you would need to provide a clear explanation (preferably supported by evidence) of any costs you have incurred or damage that has been caused as a result of the work.’
15. The landlord’s stage 2 response to the complaint was its final complaint response confirming that its complaints procedure had been exhausted.
16. Following the exhaustion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure there was further correspondence between the resident and the landlord about the complaint.
17. On 17 February 2020 the resident sent an email to the landlord saying that she would like £400 and the ruined carpet replaced to resolve the complaint. The landlord replied the same day saying that it needed to see photographs and receipts for the carpet and for any other loss she had suffered. The resident responded the same day saying that the landlord had already told her that it would replace the carpet.
18. On 11 Apr 2020 the resident emailed the landlord asking for an update about compensation.
19. On 16 June 2020 the resident sent an email to the landlord saying that she had still not heard from it about compensation and replacing the bedroom carpet ‘‘cus had to be ripped up.too fix leak (sic)’. On 18 June 2020 the landlord sent the resident an email saying, ‘I thought you previously said you have already replaced the carpets? That is what we would need the invoice for.’ The resident sent an email to the landlord the same day saying that it had put the carpet down so she had no invoice and that the carpet had been ripped because of the leak and the landlord had told her it would be replaced.
20. The resident sent an email chasing the landlord for a response on 29 June 2020. The landlord responded by email on 1 July 2020 asking for her to send it any emails where it had agreed to replace the carpet. It said that it would be prepared to come to a compromise on the carpets if she could send evidence that they had been damaged.
21. On 1 July 2020 the resident sent an email to the landlord saying she would accept £200. It is unclear from her email whether she said she would then replace the carpet or whether she was still expecting the landlord to replace the carpet. The landlord sent the resident a cheque for £200 on 2 September 2020. This payment was in addition to the £250 compensation already offered by the landlord.

 

 

Assessment and findings

The complaint about the level of redress offered by the landlord in respect of its acknowledged failings in carrying out works at the property.

 

22. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an apology and compensation payment of £250) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
23. The landlord did not agree to pay compensation for the resident’s furniture that had been damaged in the move and advised her to pursue this matter with the removal company. This was reasonable as the removal company were responsible for moving the furniture and any damage incurred during the move.
24. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its failings in completing the works at the property and in apologising for the delays, inconvenience and stress experienced by the resident (see paragraph 11).
25. The landlord offered to pay the resident compensation of £250 for the inconvenience she had experienced because of the delays in completing the works and her being able to return to the property.
26. In assessing compensation, the landlord uses the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. According to the guidance compensation of £250 is at the low end of the range of remedies for distress and inconvenience in cases where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples could include failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs. 
27. The delays in starting and completing the works at the property were significant. The resident stayed in the decant property for 32 weeks, 21 weeks longer than the 6 to 12 weeks’ timeframe she says she was given by the landlord when she moved.
28. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s response was not proportionate, and that the landlord has not made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were not proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident. The £250 compensation did not put right the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident (including uncertainty about postponing her operation, see paragraph 5) as a result of the landlord’s failings set out in the previous paragraph. The Ombudsman would expect the level of compensation to have been in the middle of the £250 to £700 region set out in its guidance on remedies.
29. The landlord also did not demonstrate that it had learnt from the outcome of the complaint so that it could avoid similar delays in completing works in the future.

The complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation in respect of the damaged carpet at the property

 

30. The resident maintains that she is unhappy with the redress offered by the landlord in respect of the carpet damaged by the landlord in repairing the leak at the property (see paragraph 7) and specifically that she would like the landlord to replace the carpet.
31. The landlord offered to pay the resident £200 compensation in respect of the damage to the carpet.
32. The landlord did not act fairly in its response to the complaint as it did not acknowledge any responsibility for the carpet damage or offer an apology. The landlord was aware in October 2019 that it was responsible for damaging the bedroom carpet that it had paid for and fitted, yet it repeatedly asked the resident to provide evidence of receipts and damage to the carpet and did not provide any compensation until September 2020.
33. The redress offered by the landlord did not put things right as the carpet damaged by the landlord in repairing the leak has still not been repaired.
34. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies says that remedies in the region of £50 to £250 may be used where there has been a service failure which had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. Examples could include repeated failures to reply to letters or return phone calls. The impact experienced by the complainant could include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved.  
35. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s response was not proportionate, and that the landlord has not made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were not proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident. The £200 compensation did not in itself put right the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord damaging the carpet.
36. The landlord also did not demonstrate that it had learnt from the outcome of the complaint so that it could avoid similar delays in remedying damage caused by its operatives in the future.

 

The landlord’s complaint handling

37. Following receipt of the formal complaint the landlord informed the resident that she would receive its response by 10 December 2019. However, the landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint on 6 January 2020, 31 working days after it received the complaint and 16 working days after the 15 working day timescale set out in its complaints policy (see paragraph 2). The complaints policy also says that if there is going to be a delay in responding to a complaint the landlord will inform the resident of the reasons for delay and give a revised date for issuing the response. However, the landlord did not inform the resident that its response was going to be delayed, provide a revised response date or apologise for the delay.
38. For the reasons set out in the previous paragraph the landlord acted inappropriately in its handling of the complaint.

 

Determination (decision)

The complaint about the level of redress offered by the landlord in respect of its acknowledged failings in carrying out works at the property.

39. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint. 

The complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation in respect of the damaged carpet at the property

40. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint. 

The complaint about the landlord’s complaints handling

41. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint. 

 

Reasons

The complaint about the level of redress offered by the landlord in respect of its acknowledged failings in carrying out works at the property.

42. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were not proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

The complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation in respect of the damaged carpet at the property

43. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were not proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

The complaint about the landlord’s complaints handling

44. The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s formal complaint.

 

Orders and recommendations

The complaint about the level of redress offered by the landlord in respect of its acknowledged failings in carrying out works at the property.

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of the determination to pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s delay in carrying out the works at the property. This is in addition to the £250 already paid.

The complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation in respect of the damaged carpet at the property

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of the determination to contact the resident to arrange to replace the damaged bedroom carpet and within 2 weeks of this to confirm in writing to the resident, and to this Service, the target date for the replacement to be completed.

The complaint about the landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of the determination to pay the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s delay in responding to the resident’s formal complaint.