The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Gateway Housing Association Limited (202117769)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117769

Gateway Housing Association Limited

13 May 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 is about:
  1. The level of compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of a water leak into the resident’s property.
  2. The landlord’s record keeping and complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a 76–year–old with cancer that requires a hygienic environment for him to manage this at home. His condition was previously identified by the landlord, and he is a tenant of it living in a sheltered accommodation new–build flat in a communal building. The building was one year old and still under warranty with the builder at the time that the complaint arose.
  2. On 15 April 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that a water leak was coming through his property’s living room ceiling, for which its contractor’s inspection report of 19 April 2021 found a leak around the building’s communal skylight that had to be sent back to the builder to resolve under the warranty. However, despite being recorded as present at this inspection, the builder’s contractor’s subsequent report to the builder of 27 April 2021 found that they had previously rectified all issues for this during a previous visit on 1 April 2021. The landlord’s records subsequently showed no further action being taken for the leak until 15 and 17 June 2021, when it queried whether there was anything outstanding for this as it was unable to locate its above contractor’s report and then asked for assistance with the leak under the warranty.
  3. On 18 June 2021, the landlord noted that, during heavy rain, water leaked through the resident’s ceiling and into his flat to flood the property via an open smoke vent on the roof. Although he believed that the water had leaked into the building through the communal skylight above his flat, which he thought had accidentally been left open by its contractors, and then leaked through his ceiling. The resident described the leak as having soaked his bedroom and damaged his mattress, which he felt that he had no choice but to throw out along with several other items.
  4. The resident reported that he was offered a guestroom by the landlord as temporary alternative accommodation to his property on the same day as the leak, but that the condition of the guestroom was in such a poor state that he was unable to stay there due to his need for a hygienic environment for his ill-health. He stated that he therefore had to sleep in his living room, and that he had unsuccessfully tried to contact it about this over the next three days, when he also had to see his doctor as he was unwell.
  5. The landlord recorded that it arranged for repairs to be carried out to the resident’s property on the same day as the leak on 18 June 2021 to make the electrics safe there, and its records indicated that the follow-on work required for the leak at the property was completed by it there on 21 June 2021.
  6. On 21 June 2021, the landlord also reportedly met the resident for the first time following the leak. His subsequent statement to it said that he lodged a stage one complaint with it about its handling of the leak during that meeting, and that was told that the complaint had been passed to one of its managers and to its customer services.
  7. On 23 July 2021, the resident then contacted the landlord again about the complaint and his damages claim for his mattress and other belongings, but he was told by it that no records of such a complaint from him could be located. He therefore asked for a stage one complaint to be raised by it again at that time.
  8. The resident’s stage one complaint was that:
    1. He wanted compensation from the landlord for the damage to his mattress, as this was not his fault and he believed it to be at fault for this, which he had dispose of and replace at his own cost.
    2. He was unhappy that he had been left unable to use his bedroom, with the unhygienic state of the guestroom that had left this unusable, and that there had been no member of the landlord’s staff available to resolve the issue.
    3. He was not happy with the landlord’s record keeping in relation to his previous attempt to complain to it.
  9. On 9 August 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident. It acknowledged failures on its part regarding its “poor management” of his complaint and ”lack of support” for him, as well as that the condition of the guestroom “was not up to the standard” that it expected, and that no member of staff had been at hand to help him at that time or been available to contact. The landlord therefore apologised to the resident for this and awarded him a £50 goodwill gesture in recognition of its failings.
  10. The landlord said, however, that a claim from the resident for compensation towards the mattress damage would not be considered because it stated that tenants were responsible for arranging their own contents insurance. It added that compensation for damage to residents’ property was instead only considered when this had occurred due to its failure to complete a repair.
  11. On 6 September 2021, a local councillor escalated the complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on behalf of the resident. This was for  its handling of the leak, lack of clean alternative accommodation, and it not considering the damages claim for the loss of his mattress, other belongings and the amenity of his bedroom.
  12. The local councillor also said that it was not appropriate for the resident to make a such claim via contents insurance, as he did not have this, and because the damage was not caused by him. They explained that he wanted it to either pay him for the cost of replacing the mattress, or for it to admit its liability for the damage to this, so that he could quickly make a claim against its insurance for the cost, without any dispute from the insurer.
  13. On 15 October 2021, the landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident, and it upheld its previous decision. This was because it felt that its stage one response had addressed all of the issues that he had raised, and it had previously upheld the complaint regarding its “unacceptable service and communications”, as well as the state of its guestroom. The landlord also stated that it did not necessarily pay for damaged items, but that the £50 compensation that it had offered the resident was now increased by it in line with its complaints and compensation policy, as a discretionary measure, to £200.
  14. The resident’s local councillor, acting in the capacity of his designated person, then contacted this Service to refer his complaint to us to consider, and they stated that he was not happy with the level of compensation offered to him by the landlord for this, as well as its record keeping and complaint handling. They reiterated that he attributed the leak to its failure to ensure that his building’s communal skylight was closed during heavy rainfall, and that it should either cover the cost all of his damages, or admit liability for this to enable him to make an undisputed claim for these to its insurer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. While the resident has requested that the landlord admit liability for the cost of his damaged mattress and other belongings, it is not within the authority or expertise of the Ombudsman to determine liability for this, or to award damages in a way that a court or insurer might. Therefore, the determination of liability for his damages is outside of the scope of this investigation, which instead considers whether the compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of the leak recognised any distress and inconvenience that he experienced from this proportionately, as well as its complaint handling and record keeping.

Agreement, Policies and Procedures

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of his property in repair, including the ceilings, window frames and roof, and to keep his building’s common parts in reasonable repair. Its responsive repairs policy and procedure requires it to complete emergency repairs to items including flood damage and unsafe electrics within 24 hours, urgent non-emergency leak repairs within seven days, and other routine repairs within 30 days. The landlord is permitted to decant residents for repairs to their homes as a last resort when their health and safety would otherwise be at risk, for which it is obliged to minimise disruption and provide them with extra help and support where required. It is to take into account the particular needs of, and escalate its responses to, vulnerable groups.
  2. The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy permits its residents to complain to it in person and verbally, as well as in writing, and obliges it to record and acknowledge their complaints within three working days. It is required to respond to stage one complaints within ten working days, and to final stage complaints within 15 working days. The landlord may compensate residents for failures in its service, such as the loss of bedrooms with 15 per cent of their weekly rent after seven days, repair delays with up to £50, to make good fixtures or fittings, and delays in responding to complaints, with emphasis given to vulnerable residents.
  3. The complaints and compensation policy states that the landlord’s residents are responsible for arranging their own contents insurance, for which it provides details of affordable insurance, and that it will not consider claims for damage to their property if it has met its service standards. It will instead only consider such claims if damage has occurred, with evidence of actual losses, as a result of its failure to complete a repair, for which it is to submit all information and evidence to its insurers to consider and respond to.

The level of compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of a water leak into the resident’s property

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy and procedure states that it is to repair leaks at the resident’s property and building within 24 hours or seven or 30 days, and to take into account the particular needs of vulnerable groups, as well as escalate its responses to them. He had earlier been identified as having cancer by it, and he reported water leaking through his living room ceiling to it on 15 April 2021. The landlord then arranged for its contractor to inspect this within its seven-day timescale for urgent leak repairs on 19 April 2021, for which they found a communal skylight leak that had to be referred to the builder to resolve under the building’s warranty.
  2. The builder’s contractor’s subsequent report to the builder about the leak on 27 April 2021 was within the responsive repairs policy and procedure’s 30-day timescale for other routine repairs. However, despite being recorded as present at the inspection, they found that they had previously rectified all issues for this during a previous visit on 1 April 2021, even though this was contradicted by the leak and inspection that took place after that visit on 15 and 19 April 2021, respectively. The landlord nevertheless appeared to take no action or make any enquiries about whether the leak had been fixed, or if there were any outstanding issues, until 15 June 2021, and it only asked the builder for assistance on 17 June 2021, one day before the second leak at the resident’s property on 18 June 2021.
  3. This was a failing by the landlord as, although the builder was responsible at the time for repairing the one-year-old building’s communal skylight under the warranty for this, the landlord failed to seek that the builder did so within the responsive repairs policy and procedure’s timescales. The landlord also did not address the builder’s contractor’s contradictory report about this until just before the second leak. Therefore, while it is not clear that the two leaks were related as suggested by the resident since there was no expert evidence of this, the landlord failed to seek to prevent the second leak by being aware of the status of the first leak and any outstanding issues.
  4. The landlord’s actions suggested that it was unaware of the status of the first leak for almost two months from April to June 2021, and it was unreasonable for it to have waited that long before asking for an update from the builder. The landlord should have acted more promptly, especially since the resident had been identified as having cancer by it. Therefore, it failed under its responsive repairs policy and procedure to provide a prompt repair, and to take into account his particular needs as a member of a vulnerable group, or to escalate its response to him as one.
  5. The landlord did then comply with its responsive repairs policy and procedure by completing emergency repairs to make safe the resident’s property’s electrics within 24 hours following the second leak there on 18 June 2021, by doing so on the same day. It also completed urgent non-emergency leak repairs at the property within the policy and procedure’s seven-day timescale for it to do so on 21 June 2021. Although the landlord failed to appropriately decant the resident for these repairs under its policy and procedure, when his health and safety might have been at risk from an unhygienic environment affecting his management of his cancer, which it was obliged to take into account, minimise disruption and provide extra help and support.
  6. This is because the landlord failed to provide the resident with its guestroom in a suitable condition, give him other more appropriate alternative accommodation, have a member of staff at hand to help him with this at the time of the leak, or supply one or who could be contacted by him in an emergency over reportedly the next three days. While seeking to be placed in such decant accommodation, he additionally reported that he had to see his doctor as he had been unwell, so that a hygienic area may have been even more crucial to him than normal.
  7. The landlord’s stage one complaint response initially offered £50 compensation to the resident for the issues relating to the second leak, the state of the temporary accommodation, and for no member of staff being reachable or on hand in relation to the condition of its temporary guestroom accommodation. Using its discretion under its complaints and compensation policy, its final stage complaint response then increased the compensation that it awarded him for these failings to £200 in total, which its policy permitted it to do, and it awarded him the £50 maximum amount available under this for repair delays.
  8. The landlord was also not required by the complaints and compensation policy to offer the resident the 15 per cent of his weekly rent for the loss of his bedroom that this provided for. This is because he had to be without the bedroom for seven days in order to receive this under the policy, and it instead completed follow-on work there after the second leak of 18 June 2021 within three days on 21 June 2021.
  9. Moreover, the landlord’s policy did not oblige it to compensate the resident for the loss of his mattress and other belongings, as this instead made him responsible for arranging contents insurance to cover this that it provided details of affordable insurance for. It was also not clear that this was caused by the builder’s failure to repair the building’s communal skylight, or that the landlord was responsible for this, in the absence of any expert evidence to this effect, which the policy required for it to compensate him for this.
  10. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord, in respect of its acknowledged failings in handling the water leak into the resident’s property, resolved the matter fairly in all the circumstances of his case. This includes whether its offer was in line with our dispute resolution principles for it to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  11. The landlord’s £200 compensation offer to the resident was proportionate to recognise the distress and inconvenience that he would have experienced from its handling of the second leak, the condition of its guestroom and its failure to provide a member of staff who was present or contactable by him, in line with its complaints and compensation policy. It nevertheless failed to acknowledge or put right its failure to take any action for the first leak for almost two months from April to June 2021, or to take his cancer into account for this or its offer of alternative accommodation to him in the guestroom, which were both contrary to its responsive repairs policy and procedure.
  12. It is additionally concerning that, despite the resident reporting his leak-damaged mattress and other belongings to the landlord that he attributed to its handling of the first leak and his local councillor explaining to it that he did not have contents insurance to cover these, it did not provide him with any further assistance with this. This is because, although its complaints and compensation policy did not oblige it to compensate him for his damages, the fact that he was seeking these from it as he suggested that it was liable for them meant that it should have given him details to enable him to submit such a claim to its and/or the builder’s insurers, in accordance with the policy. There is also no evidence that the landlord learnt from the outcome of the resident’s case by taking action to prevent its failings from occurring again in the future.
  13. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident the £200 compensation that it previously awarded him, if he has not received this already, together with another £200 further compensation, which is available under this Service’s remedies guidance for failures to meet service standards for actions and responses. It has additionally been ordered below to provide him with details to enable him to submit a liability claim to its and/or the builder’s insurers for his damaged mattress and other belongings, as well as to write to him to outline its learning from the outcome of his case to prevent its failings in this from occurring again in the future. The landlord has also been recommended below to review its relevant processes and staff training needs, and to provide the resident with details of its affordable contents insurance.

The landlord’s record keeping and complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s records showed that no further action was taken by it for the first water leak at the resident’s property until 15 June 2021, when it queried whether there was anything outstanding for this as it was unable to locate its contractor’s report for their inspection of 19 April 2021, which found the leak from the building’s communal skylight. It was an inappropriate record keeping failure on its part not to retain the inspection report, as this meant that it was unaware of the status of the leak repair, as well as that it did not record the outcome of the contradictory subsequent builder’s contractor’s report of 27 April 2021 at the time. The repair then went unaddressed until the landlord began to chase this again from 17 June 2021, which was unreasonable.
  2. It is also of concern that the landlord’s record keeping regarding the condition of the guestroom that it offered as emergency decant accommodation to the resident, who was a person with cancer, failed to note that this would be unsuitable for him. As a result, he required alternative temporary accommodation that it was unable to provide to him, so that he instead reportedly had to sleep in his living room, which was inappropriate particularly because his condition required a hygienic environment to enable him to manage, and this that may not have been present in his property that had just been flooded.
  3. The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy states that its residents may complain to it via a variety of methods and that their complaints will be recorded and acknowledged by it within three working days. The resident reportedly first attempted to lodge his stage one complaint with it on 21 June 2021, but this was not recorded or acknowledged by it, even though he stated that he was told that this had been passed on to a manager, as well as its customer services. The landlord therefore ought to have either followed the policy and done so, or applied good record keeping to ensure that it had a record of this communication in order to dispute this, which it failed to do.
  4. The complaints and compensation policy additionally obliges the landlord to give a stage one complaint response to the resident within ten working days. The stage one complaint from him was subsequently recorded by it on 23 July 2021, and it responded to this on 9 August 2021, which was one working day later than that timescale and so was not an excessive delay.
  5. The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy also states that it will issue final stage complaint responses to the resident within 15 working days. His local councillor escalated the complaint with it on his behalf to the final stage of its complaints procedure on 6 September 2021, and it issued its final stage two response on 15 October 2021, which was an inappropriately lengthy 14 working days later than that timescale.
  6. Despite the landlord’s complaints and compensation policy permitting it to compensate the resident for its delays in responding to his complaints, and to give emphasis to him as a vulnerable person, it did not consider awarding him further compensation for its delayed complaint responses or poor record keeping. This was even though he may have been particularly affected by its failings as a result of his vulnerability, which was unreasonable.
  7. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident another £250 further compensation in recognition of any unnecessary additional distress, inconvenience, time and trouble that he incurred from its delayed complaint responses and poor record keeping, as well as recommended below to review its relevant processes and staff training needs. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance’s recommendation for compensation for significant failures to follow the complaints procedure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the level of compensation offered by it for its handling of a water leak into the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping and complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £650 total compensation within four weeks, which is broken down into the £200 that it previously offered him if he has not received this already, another £200 for its further failures in handling the leak into his property, and a further £250 for its delayed complaint responses and poor record keeping.
    1. Contact the resident within four weeks to provide him with details to enable him to submit a liability claim to its and/or the builder’s insurers for his damaged mattress and other belongings.
    2. Write to the resident within four weeks to outline its learning from the outcome of his case to prevent its failings in this from occurring again in the future.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its processes and staff training needs for temporarily decanting vulnerable residents during emergency repairs, and for recording the condition and suitability of its of temporary accommodation for them, in order to ensure the appropriateness of this.
    1. Review its record keeping processes and staff training needs for outstanding new–build repairs that are the responsibility of third parties, so that these are suitably recorded, monitored and followed up to seek to ensure their timely completion.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaints and compensation policy, in order to ensure their appropriate recording of, handling of and responses to complaints and liability claims.
    3. Provide the resident with details of its affordable contents insurance.
  3. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the above recommendations.