Thrive Homes Limited (202110185)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110185

Thrive Homes Limited

25 February 2022

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 handling of the resident’s request for compensation after water ingress caused damage to her home.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in a ground floor flat.
3. The resident reported leaks from the flat above on 7 December 2020 and 8 December 2020. The repair records note that a contractor attended on 8 December 2020 and identified and remedied the source of the leak.
4. On 5 January 2021 the resident reported that she had no electrics or heating due to a leak from the flat above. A contractor attended the same day to make the electrics safe. Operatives reattended the following day to clean up the water from the leak and provide a dehumidifier.
5. Following a further leak from above, an appointment was scheduled for 8 January 2021, but the appointment had to be rescheduled to 11 January 2021 (this was through no fault of the landlord or the resident).
6. The landlord called the resident on 22 January 2021 to advise a surveyor had been booked for 25 January 2021 to inspect the water damage to the floors and ceilings from the leak. According to a later email on 27 April 2021, the surveyor determined there was no issue with the floor structure as it “was level and dry following the dehumidifier usage”. There was no mention of conclusions from the ceiling inspection.
7. A work order was raised on 3 February 2021 to supply a second dehumidifier and repair a light damaged by the leak.
8. The landlord emailed the resident on 4 February 2021 to advise it would reimburse her for the electricity usage of the dehumidifier, which amounted to £10.95.
9. On 12 March 2021 an advocate wrote to the landlord on behalf of the resident. The advocate explained that the resident’s flat had been flooded three times from the flat above (he did not provide any dates for these floods). He said the damage had caused the resident loss of time, stress, and money. The resident was still waiting to be reimbursed for the de-humidifier costs, and there were outstanding repairs to the ceiling and floors.
10. The resident emailed the landlord on 29 March 2021 stating she had made a complaint on 15 March and had not received acknowledgement. The landlord emailed her on 30 March explaining it could not find any record of her complaint. It asked her to resend it.
11. The resident re–sent her complaint on 31 March 2021. She reported “3 ceilings with brown water stains, floors that are obviously damaged, a broken door frame, and wall paper peeling off.” She said that the surveyor had informed her an appointment would be scheduled to assess the floors in the hall, bathroom and toilet but she was later informed by the landlord that it was not responsible for repairs to the carpets; she disputed this as she said it was the floors, not the carpets, that were damaged. She also said he had to stay at a friend’s property for a night due to the leak. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day.
12. An internal email on 23 April 2021 notes that the landlord had called the resident and informed her it would complete the works. The resident said she had already paid a contractor to remedy the damage, following being informed by several members of staff that that it was her responsibility. The resident wanted to make a complaint as the landlord had taken four months to inform her it would complete the works.
13. A work order was raised on 23 April 2021 to carry out remedial work to the decoration. This was then cancelled the same day.
14. An internal email on 27 April 2021 stated that the landlord had spoken to the resident and she had arranged for the decorations to be repaired as well as the “sheet flooring to the bathroom and WC Cloakroom”. It informed her she would need to claim for the water damage remedial works from the neighbour in the flat above, which it said “she accepted”. The resident’s only outstanding concern was that the hall area had started to creak and she was worried about the structure.
15. The landlord sent its stage one response on 27 April 2021. It said the leaks from the flat above had different causes, and were not caused by poor workmanship. The landlord apologised that it had incorrectly said it would make good the decorations, and that this needed to be dealt with by her home contents insurance provider. It said it would arrange an inspection to assess the floor structure.
16. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 June 2021 and stated she had not received the response letter. She also said the damages had cost her £420 to repair, which she said she wanted resolved.
17. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 12 June 2021. She said she had not received the stage one response and an appointment had not been booked to assess the flooring. She disputed that she should have to pay for the damage, as the landlord had informed her that the damage was caused by her neighbour. She said the leak “took three visits to repair and each time damage was caused to my flat”. She also gave authorisation for the landlord to discuss the complaint with her advocate. 
18. The landlord responded on 14 June 2021 and resent the stage one response. It escalated the resident’s complaint and advised she would receive a response within 20 working days. 
19. According to the landlord’s stage two complaint response, it spoke with the resident on 24 June 2021. She said that although she had home contents insurance, she did not make a claim as she felt her insurance premiums would increase in the future. She was therefore unhappy that she had to pay for the damage that was caused by the neighbour above.
20. The landlord sent its stage two response on 2 July 2021. It reiterated that “The leaks from the flat above were not due to maintenance failings” and as a result she would need to claim on her home contents insurance, it apologised that she felt this was unfair. It had incorrectly informed her it would make good the decorations due to a misunderstanding of the cause of the leak; it had reiterated this procedure with its staff. It had given the resident £15 DIY vouchers to compensate for the additional electricity usage of the dehumidifier. It apologised that she had not received the stage one response. A follow-up inspection of the floor would take place in a few weeks and it would contact her regarding an appointment. It explained how she could escalate her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
21. An internal email on 21 July 2021 confirmed two floor boards were missing.
22. On 10 August 2021 a work order was raised to renew the missing floor boards in the living room and bedroom. This was attended on 16 September 2021.

Assessment and findings

23. The resident’s tenancy agreement states:
    1. The landlord is responsible for repairs the structure of the property, including floors, ceilings and door frames, excluding painting and decorating. 
    2. The landlord is responsible for repairs to electricity and heating installations.
    3. The resident is responsible for repairs to interior decorations.
24. The landlord’s compensation policy states:
    1. It will not offer compensation when the landlord is not responsible for damage to belongings. This should be covered by home contents insurance.
    2. It will offer “at cost” compensation when “action or inaction has caused damage to the property or decorations in the property”.
25. The landlord’s online repair information defines an emergency repair as one “where health and safety is at risk or the property may be damaged”.
26. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is obligated to repair leaks, as it is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property. It was therefore necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of leaks and take appropriate actions to resolve any issues it identified. As the landlord defines a repair as an emergency if there is a risk the property could be damaged, it was reasonable for the landlord to attend within its emergency timeframe of 24 hours. On each occasion the leak occurred, other than when the appointment had to be rescheduled, a contractor attended and made the leak safe in an appropriate timeframe. The landlord promptly attended on 5 January 2021 (the most substantial leak) when the resident reported she had no electrics or heating, to make them safe. It then reattended the following day to clear the water and provide dehumidifiers. Overall, each time a leak was reported, its response was prompt and effective.
27. The landlord incorrectly initially informed the resident that it would complete the outstanding works for damage from the leak, however, it later explained that this was due to a misunderstanding of the cause of the leak. As the landlord provided a clear explanation for the mistake, and said it had provided extra training for staff to remind them of the procedure, it has appropriately remedied its mistake.
28. Under the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for any repairs to decorations. While it is understandable that the resident is dissatisfied that the landlord cannot compensate for the damage of the interior decorations, including the stained ceilings and damaged wallpaper, the landlord has acted in line with its policy and the tenancy agreement. The landlord advised the resident to make a claim on her content’s insurance. This is reasonable as, under its compensation procedure, it will not compensate for damage unless it was caused by the action or inaction of the landlord. It was determined that the leak had several different causes that were not the result of the landlord or contractor’s actions, and it took reasonable action to stop the leak itself, therefore it was not obligated to offer compensation. It managed the resident’s expectations in its stage one response and correctly signposted her to where she could obtain the outcome that she was seeking. Overall, a landlord would only be expected to consider compensation for damage to the decorations in a home, or to belongings (or other consequences, such as a resident staying away from their home), if the damage was the result of its own actions or inaction with something it is responsible for. The landlord’s policies reflect this position. Nothing in the evidence provided for this investigation indicates that the water ingress into the resident’s home was caused by something the landlord was responsible for. The landlord acted to make the resident’s home safe, and undertook some restoration work following the water ingress, but its decision to refer the resident to her own home insurance rather than offer further work or compensation was, in these circumstances, reasonable and in line with its policies and procedures.

Determination (decision)

29. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the compliant.

Reasons

30. The landlord attended the leaks in an appropriate timeframe, followed its policies regarding compensation, and clearly communicated with the resident.