Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (202008787)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008787

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

7 June 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 was about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:

(a)  report of flooding at the property.

(b)  her associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident has lived for over 20 years in a three bedroom house owned and managed by the landlord. She lives at the property with her five children. The property is on a slope and when it rained heavily rainwater built up in her back garden.
3. On 2 October 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that heavy rain had flooded her property, damaging her laminate flooring through the house. She was worried it might flood again in the event of further heavy rain. On 5 October 2019 it appears the landlord intended to arrange the installation of a temporary barrier to try and stop water entering the property, but when the contractor was not able to attend it is not clear if this was rescheduled. The resident has said someone came to inspect the property within three weeks of her report but not that any work was undertaken. On 16 October, 11 and 19 November 2019 the resident called for an update, but it is not clear if she received one.
4. On 4 and 6 December 2019 the landlord’s records indicate it arranged for the garden to be inspected, but it is unclear what follow up action was taken at that stage.
5. Stage 1 complaint: On 10 February 2020 the resident submitted a formal complaint. She said that in October 2019 heavy rain had flooded the property and damaged her laminate flooring in the property. She complained it had taken 3 weeks for the landlord to inspect the damage but by then the water had dried and so the problem of the water collecting in the back garden was not evident. She was worried her property would flood again. She complained that since the inspection she had had to continually chase the landlord for updates ‘or else I would never know what’s going on.’ [The landlord’s complaints policy provides a two stage complaints process under which – at the time of the resident’s complaint – it aimed to provide both its Stage 1 investigation and Stage 2 review if requested within 28 calendar days.]
6. The landlord arranged for its repairs officer to visit the resident on 24 February 2020 but, when the resident was not at home, it attempted to reschedule.
7. However on 26 March 2020 Covid lockdown regulations came into effect. Government guidance to landlords was that access to a property was only for serious and urgent issues and so restrictions might prevent inspections. It said landlords should not be unfairly penalised where restrictions prevented them from meeting some routine obligations.
8. On 27 April 2020 the landlord’s records indicate it confirmed the details of the work with the resident and said it would be in touch with an appointment when it had further guidance regarding the lockdown. On 18 May 2020 the government updated representative of social housing residents of the resumption of routine repairs. It said that as lockdown measures started to be eased landlords should be able to carry out routine and essential repairs, but that there would be a backlog and so it may take longer than normal to carry out work. [From 4 July 2020 government regulations changed the 2 metre social distancing rule to 1 metre+.]
9. Stage 1 response: On 29 July 2020 the landlord provided its complaint response. In summary it found:
   1. It had arranged for its repairs officer to attend on 24 February 2020 to inspect the area so work could be arranged, but the resident was not at home.
   2. It had advised her on 26 March 2020 that action on her complaint was on hold pending Covid restrictions but it would be in touch once it was able to progress it.
   3. Business returned to normal on 7 July 2020 and it informed her an appointment was scheduled for 24 July 2020 for works to rectify the sloping and pooling of water. The resident proposed an earlier date but this was not possible on account of the complexity of the works and limited workers available.
   4. When contractors attended on 24 July 2020 she was not at home. It asked that she make contact to arrange a further appointment for the works but in the event of another ‘no access’ attendance the job would be closed.
10. On 19 and 28 August 2020 the resident called the landlord for an update.
11. Complaint escalation request: On 1 September 2020 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint for review. On 21 September 2020 the landlord asked for both her and its contractors’ availability for the works. 
12. Stage 2 response: On 28 September 2020 the landlord provided the outcome of its review as follows:
    1. It had received her report of the garden flooding on 2 October 2019 and an inspection established major works were needed to prevent future flooding.
    2. The work required two operatives for two days and there was a delay in finding operatives available for the work.
    3. Covid restrictions then further delayed this.
    4. Works were organised for July 2020 but as the resident was unable to grant access this had been rearranged for 23 October 2020.
    5. It offered her £250 compensation for its delay in completing the works between October 2019 and March 2020. It said works should have been completed before the Covid lockdown in March.
    6. It provided information as to how she could make a claim against its insurers for the damage to her flooring.
    7. It had fed back to appropriate managers to prevent similar delays happening again and it intended to learn from her case.
13. It is not clear if the resident accepted the £250 compensation. On 5 October 2020 she called the landlord for an update.
14. On 23 October 2020 the landlord arranged for contractors to lay raised slabs and shingle in the back garden and assured her it would fix the problem but this did not and it flooded again in November 2020. This time it required the fire service to pump out the water. [A second national Covid lockdown began on 5 November 2020.] The landlord’s records indicate that in November 2020 it again installed a barrier to try and prevent water entering the property and conducted a drain survey. During November 2020 the resident called a number of times for an update on the work and for information regarding an insurance claim. It appears that following the drain survey on 23 December 2020 the landlord arranged for works to be carried out.
15. On 14 January 2021 the resident reported her property had flooded again and said she wanted to move out until the problems were sorted. On 15 January 2021 the resident and her family were decanted to temporary hotel accommodation. The Ombudsman notes a drainage inspection by the landlord revealed ‘extensive structural defects to the drainage system…which could be leaking into the surrounding areas.’ During January 2021 the records indicate the landlord arranged for a further inspection and quotes for the drainage / internal works.
16. Following her decant, through January – February 2021 the resident remained in contact with the landlord. She said she was off work with the stress of it all and would prefer to decant to a house rather than a hotel. She said she did not wish to return until all the work and damage was rectified and if the problem could not be fixed she wanted to move. She was unhappy that she was liable for rent on the property when she was not living there. She asked about the possibility of moving after the works had been completed and her right to acquire. The landlord advised her of her options.
17. The landlord’s records indicate that work started on 3 February 2021 but that flooding over the weekend meant further investigation was needed. This identified pipework ‘close to collapsing’ and required a specialist excavation team. The further work was approved by the landlord and a further site visit was conducted on 19 February 2021 to determine how to proceed. On 26 February 2021 contractors attended to start work but further issues with the drainage were detected and required investigation. This appears to have been related to tree roots in the drainage system. Following investigation, on 9 March 2021 the drainage works began.
18. Meanwhile, on 1 March 2021 the landlord notified the resident that the garden drainage works would be completed during 10 – 15 March 2021. It also provided decant information, notifying her that while she was decanted she would still be liable for payment of rent on the property. [It appears the landlord planned to undertake works to the lawn once the resident had moved back to the property.] It appears the works were completed by 26 March 2021.
19. By this stage the resident had complained to the Ombudsman. She said that her kitchen and hallway floors had been taken up, there was damp damage to the surrounding areas/walls and household items and furniture. She said the repairs officer was keeping her updated. The resident said she had had to take time off work ‘here and there’ and that contractors had missed appointments and that while the £250 offered by the landlord recognised this, it had not considered the distress and inconvenience she had suffered and she still wanted to move.

Assessment and findings

20. The majority of the flooding and subsequent action by the landlord in this case post-dated the resident’s formal complaint on the issue. In coming to the Ombudsman the resident does not consider that in response to her complaint the landlord took sufficient action to address her concern about possible future flooding.
21. There is no suggestion that, prior to the resident reporting the flooding, the landlord ought to have been aware of a potential issue with the property. But when the resident reported the matter its repair obligation was triggered. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, flooding is categorised as an emergency repair to which it undertakes to respond within 24 hours and thereafter if major repairs are required it notes this may involve temporarily re-housing a resident. The potential seriousness of flooding is therefore recognised in the landlord’s repairs policy.
22. Initial delay: When the resident first reported the flooding in October 2019 the evidence indicates the landlord had begun to investigate the issue but it seems very little meaningful action was taken to address the problem until the resident lodged her formal complaint in February 2020, prompting its repairs manager’s visit on 24 February 2020. The landlord has provided no explanation for its failure to progress matters during this period but it did apologise and recognise its failure to do so in its Stage 2 complaint review (paragraph 14). Importantly, it recognised that were it not for its delay during this time, the works to the garden would have been completed before the March 2020 lockdown (paragraph 12). This was a service failure of significant consequence for the resident.
23. The failure to take effectively action the resident’s report between October 2019 and March 2020 resulted in any subsequent action to resolve the problem coming up against lockdown restrictions on 26 March 2020 and the consequent delay of this until late July 2020. While the resident did not suffer another flood during that particular period, she was still living with the disruption and inconvenience of living in a property that had suffered water damage and had understandable concerns about a recurrence. It follows that had the landlord taken appropriate steps to resolve the issue when the resident first reported it, even though the work required ultimately took around six months to complete from start to finish (October 2020 – March 2021), had that work begun when it should in October 2019 it would have been resolved before the lockdown and the later delays and inconvenience of further flooding would have been avoided.
24. Indeed, the knock-on effect of the delay caused clear and considerable distress and inconvenience for the resident and her family. She had continued to live at the property during the subsequent incidents of flood damage (November 2020 and January 2021) and the inconvenience, frustration, discomfort and stress this caused are evident from her contact with the landlord.  It was following the January 2021 flooding that the resident asked to be moved from the property while works were carried out. Even though it appears this would likely have been necessary in any event, having to decant to temporary accommodation with her family for a period of over two months was again an understandable cause of stress and inconvenience for the resident.
25. The Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord’s offer of £250 compensation went some way, at the time it was made (paragraph 12), to recognising the stress and inconvenience suffered by the resident and her family up to March 2020. Under the landlord’s compensation policy the landlord can make discretionary compensation payments in recognition of the amount of inconvenience caused to a resident when there has been unreasonable delay to its published service standards or where repairs appointments are not kept. During this period there was evidence of a missed appointment (5 October 2019) and of the resident having to chase the landlord for updates (paragraph 3). Also, the fact that the resident had had to lodge a complaint in order to prompt progress demonstrates the landlord was not being sufficiently proactive and this ought not to have been necessary. These factors, set against the fact that no further flooding occurred during this period, makes the landlord’s offer of compensation in September 2020 on balance a reasonable one and in line with its compensation policy that allows for payments up to £350 for service failures causing significant and serious long-term effects on a resident.
26. But what the landlord did not know at that point, with its complaint response coming where it did in the course of events, was the knock-on effect that its service failure/delay would have on the subsequent course of events and how that would compound the stress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
27. Whilst the Ombudsman notes that the subsequent floods and resulting decant occurred after the landlord had issued its final response to the complaint, the landlord should have reconsidered its offer of compensation to the resident once the works were all complete and she was able to move back into the property. As the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles set out, a crucial part of effective complaint management is ensuring that matters are put right. In this case the landlord had identified that works were needed to put matters right and had committed to completing these in its final complaint response. As works were still outstanding at this point, and taking into account the nature of the works, it would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to have committed to reviewing its offer of compensation once the works were completed. This would have ensured that it had fully considered the impact on the resident of its earlier failure to resolve the flooding. It is that which, in the Ombudsman’s view, has yet to be adequately redressed by the landlord.
28. In considering what would be reasonable compensation for this, the Ombudsman is mindful of the fact that the landlord was not responding to a defect about which it could reasonably have been aware until it was reported, and it could not have foreseen the imposition of lockdown and its consequent delay. Those are mitigating factors which need to be accounted for in any subsequent award, but the fact remains that had the landlord responded to the resident’s report of the flood within a reasonable timeframe the fact of the lockdown would not have become an issue.
29. Subsequent delays: That period of delay and its impact aside, the Ombudsman does not see there to have been undue delay thereafter as a result of service failure by the landlord.
30. Firstly, while lockdown restrictions effectively stalled progress to resolve the underlying issue from April to July 2020 the Ombudsman sees this to have been  an inevitable consequence of the Covid pandemic. The landlord notified the resident of the impact of lockdown on the works at the property (paragraph 10) and while understandably disappointing for the resident, it was at least appropriate it manage her expectations at that point.
31. Secondly, it is apparent from the evidence that the underlying issue behind the flooding was a complex one that took a number of inspections to ascertain the cause and nature of remedial works. Although the work initially undertaken by the landlord to address the problem – by effectively modifying the gradient of the slope (paragraph 14) – did not resolve the issue, this was not service failure by the landlord. As the Ombudsman sees it, the landlord was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its contractors. At that point it was dealing with an isolated incident and could not reasonably have known of the underlying drainage problem. The Ombudsman therefore considers it was reasonable and proportionate for the landlord to have undertaken the work that it did at that time and before the fact of the underlying issue became apparent.
32. Once it had become apparent, however, the evidence indicates the landlord took reasonable steps to progress its investigation and remedial work from December 2020 onwards (paragraphs 14 – 17). The stop/start nature of this progress, particularly in February 2021 (paragraph 17), was not in the Ombudsman’s view the result of a service failure on the part of the landlord. Rather, it was the nature of the complexity of the issue the landlord was trying to resolve and in doing so it was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of both the specialists conducting the inspections and the contractors.
33. Lastly, on the issue of the time taken, while there was a delay of three months in progressing works between July and October 2020 the Ombudsman does not see that was a result of service failure by the landlord.  The landlord had proposed a start date for the works (paragraph 11) and while the resident had said this date was not convenient, the fact that it did not go ahead on the day or the fact that it could not be arranged sooner was not the result of service failure by the landlord. That appears to have simply been the result of the resident’s unavailability combined with the complexity of works and the availability of contractors. All of which were matters outside the landlord’s direct control. It must also be recognised that at this post-lockdown point the landlord would inevitably have been working through its backlog of work and there still remained some restrictions in place regarding social distancing, both of which would have placed some constraints on any rescheduling.
34. Turning to other aspects of the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response during this later period of delay, the Ombudsman notes much of her contact with the landlord and dissatisfaction at that time was concerned with day to day living arrangements for her and her family at the hotel to which they had been decanted (ie parking arrangements; meals). The evidence indicates the landlord responded promptly and reasonably to her enquiries. She was also unhappy with her liability for rent while at the hotel. But the fact that there is no suggestion the resident was paying for the stay at the hotel and that payment of her rent was a requirement of the landlord’s decant policy which was explained to her, the Ombudsman sees no evidence of a service failure or misdirection by the landlord on the issue.
35. The Ombudsman also notes that during this time the resident asked about decanting to a house rather than the hotel. It would appear from the evidence that having moved the resident to temporary accommodation and begun its investigations and works at the property the landlord could not have reasonably foreseen matters would become as protracted as they eventually did. Nor has the Ombudsman seen evidence that the resident pursued an application for a further decant at that time. On the basis of the evidence provided the Ombudsman does not find a service failure by the landlord to consider a move to alternative decant accommodation.
36. Complaints handling: The Ombudsman has already explained that it ought not to have been necessary for the resident to complain in order to prompt work to address the flooding at her property. Although this succeeded in prompting some action prior to lockdown, the lockdown caused not only the remedial works but also the response to her complaint to be paused. As the Ombudsman sees it, while the resulting delayed complaint response was not the result of service failure by the landlord, it was appropriate that it notify her of the consequence of lockdown on its ability to respond within the requisite timescales. The Ombudsman notes it did so on the day of lockdown (26 March 2020) and so appropriately managed the resident’s expectations from that point on.
37. On resumption of ‘normal service’ the landlord duly responded to the complaint (paragraph 9) and provided a useful update in terms of how things stood at that moment in time, but more importantly it failed to address the issue of its earlier delay. As this is what had prompted the resident’s complaint in the first place the Ombudsman considers she would have expected and been entitled to a full explanation for the delay and to tangible recognition of it. The fact that the landlord failed to do so was a missed opportunity to address sooner the resident’s concern and so potentially avoid the delay and inconvenience to her in needing to escalate her complaint to get the full response to which she was entitled.
38. The Ombudsman notes that once escalated, the landlord responded reasonably to the issue of its earlier delay and offered compensation for this (paragraph 12). It also directed her to its insurers and gave details of how she could claim for damage to her possessions. That was an appropriate response and in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy under which claims for damage to personal possessions in excess of £300 are to be determined by its insurers and not through its complaints/compensation policy.

Determination (decision)

39. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of flooding at the property.
40. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

41. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of flooding in October 2019 was unduly delayed and the knock-on effect of this delay to subsequent events caused the resident and her family considerable stress and inconvenience which has yet to be fully recognised by the landlord.
42. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint failed at the earliest opportunity to address its delay and provide the resident with an explanation and recognition of the impact of this on her and her family.

Orders

43. Within four weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is order:
    1. To renew its offer to the resident of £250 compensation if not already done so.
    2. To make the resident a further payment of £500 in recognition of the impact of its delay in responding to the resident’s report of flooding in October 2019.
    3. To make the resident a payment of £100 compensation in recognition of its failure to fully address her complaint at the earliest opportunity.