Crawley Borough Council (202113941)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113941

Crawley Borough Council

19 April 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 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 the landlord’s decision to recharge the resident for repairs following a flood in her property.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, residing in a ground-floor maisonette.
3. The flood in the resident’s kitchen occurred on 10 June 2021, having been caused by one of her cats knocking the kitchen hot water tap on in her absence.
4. The resident submitted her stage one complaint to the landlord on 16 June 2021 because, despite it having informed her on 14 June 2021 that it would not recharge her for the repairs following the flood in her property, it subsequently informed her on 16 June 2021 that it would only be waiving some of the charges. She was concerned that she would therefore have to move out of the property and become homeless, as she could not afford the remaining charges.
5. The landlord explained in its stage one complaint response to the resident, on 1 July 2021, that it was not aware of the extent of the damage to her property when it had agreed not to recharge her for the repairs there, and it therefore offered her £100 compensation for the confusion in relation to the recharge. To learn from the complaint, it would ensure that a full property inspection would be carried out before it committed to waiving rechargeable repairs in the future.
6. The resident nevertheless remained dissatisfied with the stage one complaint response, and she requested the escalation of her complaint to the final stage of the complaints procedure. She was still unhappy with the recharges, and she was further dissatisfied that the landlord’s operative had subsequently indicated that the cost of the recharges would be less than £1,500, when this was actually £2,499.
7. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 19 July 2021. It apologised for initially agreeing to waive the recharges to her, and it explained that it could not use its funds to pay for accidental damage. The landlord also offered to review the resident’s circumstances to agree an affordable instalment plan for her to pay the recharges. Additionally, it apologised for providing the estimated cost for the rechargeable repairs to her prior to obtaining higher quotes for the repair work.
8. The resident subsequently referred her complaint to this Service, as she was unhappy that the landlord had initially advised her that she would not be charged and that it had then later recharged the repair to her. To resolve her complaint, she wanted the recharges to be waived by it since she could not afford these, being a disabled person living on benefits with no spare income.
9. The landlord subsequently confirmed to this that it had agreed an instalment plan for the resident to pay the recharges for the repairs to her property at the rate of £10 per month, which it aimed to complete by 8 March 2022. This was because she did not have contents insurance to cover the cost of the repairs and its own insurers had confirmed to it that they would not do so.

Assessment and findings

Agreement, policies and procedures

10. The resident’s tenancy agreement with the landlord makes her responsible for her belongings at her property and for the decorations there, for which it is only responsible for damage as a result of its negligence and advises her to take out contents insurance. This also makes her responsible for paying for repairs to any negligent damage caused to the property by any member of her household.
11. Appendix A of the landlord’s rechargeable works procedure confirms that it will recharge repairs to the resident which are required following accidental damage by her household to any fixtures or fittings in the property that she could seek to cover via contents insurance.
12. As per the landlord’s homes procedure – assessing compensation document, it would usually pay £25 per incident of a failure of service by it and would take into account the resident’s inconvenience or detriment when assessing this.

Scope of investigation

13. The resident has raised concerns over her mental health and wellbeing, following the landlord’s decision to recharge her for the repairs to her property. The Ombudsman does not dispute her comments regarding her health and wellbeing, but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing or to award damages for these. This is because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so in the way that a court, tribunal or insurer might. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused her.

The landlord’s decision to recharge the resident for repairs following a flood in her property

14. In accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement and Appendix A of the landlord’s rechargeable works procedure, it will recharge repairs to her following negligent or accidental damage caused by any member of her household to fixtures or fittings in the property, for which it is not responsible and advises her to obtain contents insurance. As such, once it was established that the damage caused to the property was due to her cat, it was acting in accordance with its obligations from the tenancy agreement and procedure when it decided on to recharge her for the cost of the resulting repair works that needed to be carried out in the property.
15. Nevertheless, it was to be expected that the landlord would have communicated this clearly to the resident. In this case, however, it did not do so, having instead caused her confusion after it had initially agreed on 14 June 2021 to waive the recharge costs for the repairs following the flood at her property. This was unfair on the resident, who could have reasonably expected the landlord to have obtained the information that it needed before it offered to waive her recharge costs, and as such there was a failing on its part for its poor communication regarding the repairs that it would recharge her for.
16. The resident raised concerns that she had not received the response about the recharges that the landlord had committed to providing to her on 14 June 2021. It subsequently provided a response about this to her two days later on 16 June 2021, when it had informed her that it would be recharging her for some of the repairs. The landlord apologised for its poor communication about this in its final stage complaint response on 19 July 2021, and it explained that the operative who had inspected the property on 14 June 2021 did not respond to the resident sooner as she had been assigned a single point of contact with it. In view of it having responded to her by informing her two days later that it would be recharging her in line with its policy, no delay has been identified in the timeliness of its response to her.
17. During the complaints procedure, the resident also raised concerns that the landlord had indicated the recharge cost for the repairs to the property to her would be “less than £1,500”, with the actual cost being £2,499. In response to this aspect of her complaint, its records showed that it investigated the matter, including by speaking directly with its operative who had inspected the property and suggested that the recharge cost could be around £1,600, but that it was awaiting the quotes for the repair work.
18. This was a reasonable and proportionate response by the landlord to this aspect of the resident’s complaint, and no failing has been identified on its part in respect of this, as it had explained to her when it had inspected the property that it was awaiting the quotes to understand the true cost of the repair works. However, it has been recommended below to consider when it should provide such estimates to its residents in the future, and how it can improve its communication regarding the likely accuracy of such estimates.
19. The landlord’s complaint responses to the resident acknowledged its failings, apologised to her, and confirmed that it will carry out a full property inspection before agreeing to waive recharges to its residents in the future. It also offered her £100 compensation, which was in line with its homes procedure – assessing compensation document, and this Service’s remedies guidance, which suggests compensation in this range where there has been failure which had an impact on her but was of short duration, and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for her.
20. In this case the landlord’s failings would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, but they did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint for her because it had ultimately acted in accordance with its policy in recharging her for the repairs. It was therefore appropriate that it agreed to apply the compensation that it offered her for these failings to the recharge cost for the repairs to her property, for which it also acted reasonably by subsequently agreeing and affordable instalment plan for her to pay this at the rate of £10 per month, after it confirmed that neither her nor its insurance would cover this.
21. In summary the landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its failings, putting things right by carrying out a full property inspection to assess the damage caused by the flood, and offering compensation which was proportionate to recognise any detriment experienced by the resident as a result of its failings. It also learnt from her complaint, and it committed to carrying out a full property inspection prior to agreeing to waive recharges to its residents in the future.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its decision to recharge her for repairs following a flood in her property satisfactorily.

Recommendation

23. It is recommended that the landlord consider when it should provide estimates for the cost of rechargeable repairs to its residents in the future, and how it can improve its communication regarding the likely accuracy of such estimates.