Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited (202013299)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013299

Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited

22 October 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

The complaint is regarding:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been the leaseholder of a ground floor, one-bedroom flat since 2001. Although he does not currently personally reside at the property, for the purpose of this investigation he will still be referred to as ‘the resident’. The landlord, a Housing Association, owns the freehold of the property.
The landlord’s Responsive Repairs policy states it will respond to ‘Same Day Emergency’ repairs within four hours and advises that same day emergency repairs may include situations ‘where failure to carry out the repair will result in further damage to the property’. ‘Everyday repairs’, of a ‘minor nature which…does not pose a health and safety risk’ are attended to within 28 days.
Its policy also stipulates that ‘lessees are responsible for…arranging home contents insurance’ and are ‘solely responsible for any loss or damage to your home due to…flooding or accidental damage’.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. It states that it should acknowledge complaints within two working days and then provide a response at Stage One within 10 working days and within 20 working days at Stage Two.
The landlord also has a compensation policy which states that, when ‘residents…are adversely affected by services (it) may provide’ it may consider making ‘a discretionary financial payment or other gesture of goodwill without us accepting any liability’. However, its policy does not give any detail or guidance regarding how it calculates any potential awards of compensation.

Summary of Events

On 28 July 2019, the resident reported a leak at his property. He advised the landlord that a leak was coming into his kitchen from the flat above and water had been falling onto a microwave, which had now been moved. The landlord acknowledged the report the following day and advised it had passed the job to its Repairs Team. It advised the resident to contact it again if the leak worsened.
On 2 August 2019, the resident contacted the landlord by email to raise a complaint. He stated he was unhappy the leak had not yet been attended to and considered it ‘inappropriate (that) a potential electrical hazard should have been left…for approaching a week’. However, the landlord’s repair records show that it had reviewed the repair order and decided to attend as an urgent appointment. An operative duly attended on 2 August 2019 and identified a leak.
The landlord replied to the resident’s email on 29 August 2019 and apologised for its delayed response, which it advised was due to a member of staff being on leave. It stated that its Repair Team had attended the flat above and would be attending the following day to carry out follow on works.
Following further correspondence with the resident, landlord records show that on 26 September 2019 it provided him with a summary of its response to the report of a leak so far. It advised that it had raised an appointment for an operative to attend on 7 August 2019, but it had been unable to gain access on that date and also a subsequently rearranged appointment the following week. It advised the resident that a third appointment was booked for 27 August 2019, but that this was cancelled due to ‘operative illness and shortage of staff’.
On 17 October 2019, the resident chased the landlord’s complaint response and asked what steps it would take to resolve the issue. The landlord replied the following day and apologised for the time it had taken to respond to him. In its response, the landlord:
1. Reiterated that it had not considered the original report of a leak to be a repair that required a 24-hour response and that it had instead raised an appointment for an operative to attend on 7 August 2019.
2. Outlined again the problems it had had with gaining access to the flat above and noted that it had advised the resident on 2 September 2019 that a further appointment had been booked for 24 September 2019.
3. Acknowledged the resident had then had cause to call the Fire Brigade on 23 September 2019, when they located a leak related to the bath overflow from the flat above.
4. Clarified that it had had contact with the resident the following day, 24 September 2019, following which its operative attended to repair the waste trap under the bath in the property above. Although it advised it was ‘unclear’ if its operative had attended that day by scheduled appointment, it noted that the attendance, and repair carried out, ‘appeared’ to be unrelated to the leak identified by the Fire Brigade the previous day.
5. Noted that the resident had indicated he considered its response to his report of the leak amounted to disrepair but again referred to the access issues it had experienced with the flat above. It also stated that it considered it had responded promptly and appropriately to the initial report, based on images the resident had provided.
6. Acknowledged its communication with the resident could have been ‘more regular’ regarding the progress of the repair and that this ‘gave (him) the perception that the repair was not being prioritised’. It stated it had held conversations with the staff involved in issuing its responses and lessons had been learned which would lead to it providing more regular updates in future.
The resident and landlord exchanged further emails between 8 and 29 November 2019. During their correspondence, the landlord offered a further apology for the lack of communication regarding the repair between July and September 2019 and advised on 11 November 2019 that it partially upheld his complaint on this basis. It also offered to arrange for one of its technical inspectors to attend and assess reported damage caused by the leak, although it noted that this was a chargeable service. The resident declined this offer, maintained that he was unhappy with the landlord’s response and queried how the ‘potential electrical hazard’ he had initially reported had not been considered an emergency. He further advised that ‘dealing with the situation’ had caused him severe anxiety and requested the landlord ‘accept liability’ and offer redress, although he did not specify the exact outcome he was seeking. He also provided photographs of water damage which he stated had not been caused by the one-off leak on 23 September 2019 but instead stemmed from the original leak in July 2019.
The landlord treated the resident’s later email of 29 November 2019 as a new complaint and provided a Stage One response on 3 December 2019. In its response, the landlord advised that it understood the resident’s complaint to concern:
1. The time taken to resolve the leak.
2. The communication he received regarding the repair.
3. The landlord’s response to the issue, which the resident considered to amount to disrepair.
4. An investigation carried out by the landlord’s Crime Enforcement and Regulations Office.
Addressing the first two points, the landlord advised it had nothing further to add from its previous responses. Regarding the resident’s claim that the matter of the leak constituted disrepair, the landlord referred to previous advice it had issued on how to progress a disrepair claim and noted that it had also provided the resident with requested information if he wished to make an insurance claim. Regarding an investigation carried out by the landlord’s Crime Enforcement and Regulations Office into the cause of the leak, which the resident had cited, the landlord advised it had received a summary of the case and noted that the resident had previously been given advice on what may or may not constitute statutory nuisance in September 2019 but had not heard from him further regarding this issue. It also advised that it had closed the case once it had been notified that the leak had been resolved. However, the landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint, stating that its communication with him regarding the original repair ‘could have been improved’ and that its internal communications, particularly regarding the Crime Enforcement and Regulations Office’s investigation, could have better aided it in responding to the resident’s related query sooner. The landlord advised that it had spoken to the relevant teams and expected there to be ‘improved information sharing between the tenant and leaseholder management teams in future’.
On 23 December 2019, the resident contacted the landlord by email again. The landlord treated this email as a complaint escalation request and accordingly sent an acknowledgement the following day. It then provided a Stage Two complaint response on 16 January 2020. It stated that it considered the resident’s outstanding concerns to regard:
1. Its failure to properly identify a leak into his flat from the property above.
2. Access issues it had experienced and the delay in carrying out the necessary repair.
3. Its standard of communication with the resident.
Within its response, the landlord acknowledged ‘failures’ in its service and apologised for these. Regarding the original leak report in July 2019, it advised ‘the initial email and photograph’ it received ‘did not indicate…(a) potential electrical hazard’ and that the job was therefore allocated a 28-day response target as a non-emergency repair. It acknowledged that the subsequent information the resident submitted regarding an affected electrical fitting was not added to the repair notes and that ‘on reflection, we should have contacted you following your initial report…to ensure there was no further information which would indicate a more urgent repair’. It advised that the resident’s complaint had identified a gap in its service and offered an apology.
Regarding the reported access issues with the flat above, the landlord referred to the summary of events it had previously provided but acknowledged it was ‘unsatisfactory’ the repair had not been dealt with within the 28-day target time for a non-emergency repair. It noted it had initially understood that only a ‘routine repair’ was required, and it would therefore not have had any grounds on which it could force entry to the flat above. However, the landlord now noted that a plumber had gained access on 2 August 2019, when they ‘removed the bath panel…and diagnosed the cause (of the leak) as a tiling fault’. It stated that further access to the flat above was requested to carry out a repair to the bathroom tiling, but this was not booked until 24 September 2019. The landlord also again noted that the Fire Brigade had attended the resident’s property on 23 September 2019 regarding a further leak from the flat above, but it reiterated that it did not consider this to be related to the leak reported in July. It also noted that the resident had advised he would forward on a report provided by the Fire Brigade but had not done so. It clarified that its operative had attended the flat above on 24 September 2019 in relation to the original repair job and identified a small leak from the waste trap, which was repaired along with the tiling.
The landlord advised that it agreed with its decision to partly uphold the resident’s Stage One complaint and accepted it should have been ‘more proactive in our communication with and internally’. It advised that learning had taken place regarding the need for staff to have cover in place while on leave and that residents should be contacted ‘to obtain further information when reporting a leak via email to establish severity and any potential hazards’. It advised it had shared the findings with the relevant teams, and they would review their processes.
The landlord further clarified that it would not agree to a request made by the resident to ‘make good’ damage to his ceiling. It acknowledged that it had ‘not met its published standards’ when arranging the repair of the initial leak but confirmed it did not consider it was responsible for damage caused by the leak which took place on 23 September 2019 and advised him to contact his insurer. However, the landlord also offered £100 redecoration vouchers as a goodwill gesture. It also referred the resident to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 3 February 2020 to advise he remained unhappy with the response and requested that the landlord refund him the management fees he had paid between August and December 2019. The landlord responded on 13 February 2020 and repeated its apology and advice that lessons had been learned following the resident’s complaint. However, it declined to refund any management fees but repeated its offer of £100 redecoration vouchers. It clarified that it considered the complaint closed.
After the resident referred his complaint to this Service, as part of this investigation the landlord provided a summary of events and a post-complaint review of the case to this Service. It is not clear if this review has also been shared with the resident. In its submissions to this Service, the landlord:
1. Advised that it accepted the resident’s initial report of a leak should have been treated as an emergency as the leak from the flat above was not contained within the property (therefore affecting the resident’s property). It also acknowledged that its Stage One complaint response sent in December 2019 should have provided that explanation. It apologised for its initial handling of the report of a leak.
2. Reiterated that the initial report it received did not make clear that there was a current electrical hazard following the leak, noting the use of the word ‘potential’ in the initial report, but it acknowledged that it should have clarified the ‘impact and severity’ of the leak with the resident. It also accepted that the operative initially attending the flat above should have also visited the resident’s property to assess any damage, but it could not confirm if that had been done.
3. Clarified that its repairs procedure meant it closed the follow-on repair job at the flat above on two occasions when it was unable to gain access but accepted that, due to the nature of the repair, it should have carried out a ‘thorough assessment of the impact of closing the jobs’ but did not do so.
4. Clarified that, after being notified by the resident of a further leak on 23 September 2019, which prompted the Fire Service to attend his property, it had provided him with details of how to claim on his insurance as requested. It also stated that it had confirmed with him that an operative had attended the flat above following this second leak to carry out a repair to a waste trap and considered that this repair had been attended to appropriately. However, it again accepted that there was no record of ifs operative checking the resident’s flat for any electrical hazards following the leak.
5. Acknowledged that it did not log the resident’s original complaint in August 2019 for over a month and then did not provide him with a formal response. It also acknowledged that, having logged a new complaint in December 2019, its response did not acknowledge its failure to log and progress the original complaint. It advised it had, however, since written to resident separately to apologise for the service he received.
6. Advised that its communication with the resident ‘fell below its service standards’. However, it also stated that it had taken ‘significant action’ to improve its complaint handling since the resident’s complaint was dealt with in late 2019 and early 2020, revising its complaints policy and introducing improved complaints monitoring to ensure compliance with the Housing Ombudsman Code.
7. Advised that it was willing to offer the resident £400 in compensation, to take into consideration ‘3 months total delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint’. It requested that this Service relay the offer to the resident although regrettably this request was overlooked during the preparation of the case for investigation, and it is not known if the resident has now been made aware of this offer.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak.

In its initial email responses to the resident, the landlord advised him it had not considered the reported leak to be an emergency and had therefore raised a standard repair, which had a 28-day target time for completion. Accordingly, it arranged an appointment to attend the flat above on 7 August 2019. However, within its Stage Two response, issued in January 2020, the landlord advised that an operative had in fact attended on 2 August 2019, when they identified a leak which required a follow-on repair, which was booked for 7 August 2019. The landlord’s repair records provided to this investigation also indicate that an operative attended on 2 August 2019 and suggest that the original report may have been treated as an urgent repair as the order states ‘emergency…leak affecting leaseholder at (resident’s property)’. The landlord’s records further indicate that an operative attended and reported ‘job complete…leak is from tiled shelf at end of bath’ and a follow-on repair order was raised to attend to the defect with the tiling.
Although in his complaint the resident stated he was unhappy that the landlord did not respond appropriately to a ‘potential electrical hazard’, it is noted that the original report referred only to water coming into contact with a microwave, which he advised had now been moved. While the landlord’s post-complaint review states that it considers it made an error in not initially treating the repair as an emergency, based on the initial report it received, the fact it did not automatically consider the repair to require an urgent, 24-hour response was not unreasonable. The information it received did not refer to any immediate issues regarding electrical hazards in the property. However, once it received additional information from the resident on 2 August 2019, the landlord reviewed the priority of the repair and attended the same day. This was appropriate and showed that the landlord was flexible in deciding to treat the issue more urgently once it had received further information.
Once it had attended the flat above on 2 August 2019, landlord records indicate it acted appropriately by identifying and repairing a leak and raising required follow-on works to tiling in the flat above. Landlord records indicate that the original leak was repaired on 2 August 2019, and it is noted that, in an email sent on 2 September 2019, the resident appeared to confirm that the leak had been resolved. From the correspondence provided to this investigation, the resident did not advise the landlord that the leak was ongoing after 2 August 2019. While this Service acknowledges the resident considers the landlord’s response to the initial report of a leak to amount to disrepair, from the evidence available, the landlord appears to have acted reasonably, in that it attended the flat above within a week of receiving the report, identified and resolved the leak and did not receive any further reports that it was ongoing.
Regarding the delay in completing follow-on work to the tiling in the flat above, this Service acknowledges the resident considers the delay was unreasonable and that this also amounted to disrepair. However, from the evidence available, it is not clear how he, or his property, was adversely affected by delay in completing the repair as there were no further reports of the leak being an ongoing issue. In its complaint responses, the landlord has accepted that it could have kept him better updated regarding the progress of the repair but it was reasonable for the landlord to report that access issues had prevented it from completing the repair sooner. Although it acknowledged that the repair had been completed outside of its 28-day target time, due to the reported access issues experienced with the flat above which meant two appointments were aborted, the delay was not due to any service failure on the landlord’s part.
It is also acknowledged the resident considers that water damage caused to his property was related to the original leak, rather than a one–off leak attended to by the Fire Brigade in September 2019 and that he provided photographs to support his claim, both to the landlord in November 2019, and to this Service as part of this investigation. However, the Ombudsman is limited in the extent to which it can rely on photographic evidence as it not possible for this Service to determine the location, circumstances, or validity of the photos. It is however noted that the photos submitted appear to date from October 2019, which is after both the original leak and the one-off leak attended to by the Fire Brigade. The landlord’s position that the two leaks were not related was, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, not unreasonable. It was also reasonable for it to advise the resident to claim on his insurance regarding any water damage and it is noted that the leasehold agreement makes clear that the resident, as a leaseholder, is responsible for internal decorations. Its decision to offer £100 decoration vouchers as a goodwill gesture indicated that it nevertheless recognised the trouble the resident had been caused and was a proactive step for it to take.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged it could have communicated better with the resident regarding the outstanding repair to the flat above and it apologised for this. It also advised it had learned from the complaint, and it had identified gaps in its service, particularly relating to individual officers not arranging cover when they are on leave. This was an appropriate response from the landlord, in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, and the kind of response this Service would expect to see in this situation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Landlord records show it received an email from the resident on 2 August 2019 in which he stated he wished to make a complaint about its response to the reported leak. However, it did not log this as a formal complaint until September 2019, after which the resident then had cause to chase the landlord’s response on 17 October 2019. This was not appropriate and meant there was an avoidable delay in processing, and responding to, the resident’s complaint.
On 18 October 2019, the landlord emailed the resident and attempted to address the concerns he had raised. It also provided a further response to him in November 2019, advising that it had reviewed the case and ‘upheld’ part of his complaint regarding its poor communication between July and September 2019 Although in the post-complaint review shared with this investigation the landlord acknowledges a service failure by not providing the resident with a formal response to his complaint, its emails of 18 October and 11 November 2019 did appear to constitute complaint responses, even if they were not issued in accordance with its formal complaints procedures. The fact that they were not, meant that the landlord did not appropriately advise the resident as to which stage his complaint was being responded to and did not advise him of his complaint escalation rights. This was not appropriate.
It was also not appropriate that the landlord’s initial email in reply to the resident’s complaint was issued outside of its 10 working-day target time for Stage One complaints, meaning he took time and trouble to chase the response. However, the landlord’s responses did indicate that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and, by offering to meet with him to discuss the matter further, it also showed a willingness to engage with the complaint and treat the resident fairly. Despite its initial complaint responses not being issued in accordance with its published complaint procedures, there is nonetheless evidence that landlord did attempt to deal with the resident’s complaint appropriately.
The landlord then treated further correspondence from the resident in November 2019 as being a new complaint and this time it did provide a formal response at Stage One of its complaint procedures. This was appropriate and the landlord this time responded promptly and in line with its procedures. It also appropriately escalated the complaint to Stage Two of its complaints process following further correspondence from the resident. The landlord also offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £100 towards redecoration costs after the resident had advised of damage caused to his ceiling following the leaks from the flat above. While it is noted that the resident considered this offer to be unsatisfactory, this was a proportionate offer from the landlord which sought to acknowledge the inconvenience he had experienced and treat him fairly, although it confirmed that it would not be accepting liability for any decoration costs. It was also reasonable that the landlord again directed the resident to his insurer for any further claims. This was in line with its Responsive Repairs policy which outlined that, as a lessee, the resident was responsible for ‘any loss or damage’ due to ‘flooding or accidental damage’.
However, the landlord’s responses to the new complaint in December 2019 and January 2020 did not address the fact that it had erred in not appropriately logging and responding to his original complaint in line with its complaint procedures. Although there was no obvious detriment to the resident, apart from the initial delay in providing a response, this meant the landlord missed an opportunity to clarify its error and to put things right with the resident at an earlier stage, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. The landlord has advised this Service that, following the completion of its complaint procedure, it has since written to the resident to apologise for not acknowledging this within its later complaint responses, although a copy of this letter has not been seen. This was a reasonable step for it to take.
Within the landlord’s post-complaint review, provided to this investigation, it advised that having taken a further look at its handling of the case, it was willing to offer the resident £400 in compensation. It advised this intended to take into consideration the total delay in responding to his original complaint. While it is not clear from the landlord’s complaints policy exactly how it has reached this amount, it represents a more than generous award for the failures it has acknowledged in its complaint handling and shows that the landlord has, after reviewing the case in full, sought to put things right in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. As long as the landlord fulfils its offer of £400 compensation, the Ombudsman is satisfied that this will amount to reasonable redress and will therefore not make a finding of maladministration. The landlord has recognised failings in its complaint handling and made an offer to put things right.
While it was not appropriate that the landlord’s responses did not take into consideration the resident’s comments that the situation with the leak had caused him anxiety, the landlord’s apology for the identified poor communication and its assurance that it had learned from its handling of the case and put in place amended procedures constituted reasonable redress and was in line with what this Service would expect to see in cases such as this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak.
In accordance with Paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s initial response to the landlord’s report of a leak was reasonable based on the information it had received, and it changed the priority of the repair once it had received further information. It resolved the initial leak promptly, while the delay in completing follow-on repairs were largely caused by access issues for which the landlord could not be held responsible. It nevertheless offered an apology to the resident and offered a further apology for the issues it identified with the way it had communicated with him, particularly in regard to providing updates on the progression of the repair.
It was reasonable for the landlord to decline the resident’s request to pay for redecoration costs he said were related to the leaks at his property. Under the terms of his lease, he remains responsible for the repair and internal decoration and. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs policy outlines that the resident is responsible for repairs caused by any accidental damage or flooding so it was reasonable to direct him to his insurer and its decision to offer a small goodwill gesture towards redecoration costs was an appropriate action for it to take.
The landlord failed to appropriately log the resident’s original complaint for over a month but, having finally done so, it provided him with two detailed responses. However, they were not issued formally and in accordance with its published complaint procedures. It then opened a new complaint for reasons that are unclear.

Recommendation

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this letter, contact the resident to:
1. Formally offer him the £400 compensation it agreed in its post-complaint review if it has not done so already.
2. Provide him with a copy of said review if it has not done so already.
The landlord should advise this Service if it carries out the above recommendations.