Newlon Housing Trust (202103451)

Back to Top

 

  REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103451

Newlon Housing Trust

28 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 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background and summary of events

  1. The property is a two bedroom ground floor flat. The resident has an assured tenancy and lives with her two children in the property.
  2. On 25 and 29 June 2020 the resident notified the landlord of a leak and that raw sewage was overflowing in her bathroom. The landlord attended the property on 7 July 2020. The resident states that extensive damage to her bathroom was not rectified. On 7 July 2020 the resident raised a stage one complaint.
  3. The landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 21 July 2020. This stated that the initial report leak had been attended to and rectified on 1 July 2020. It asked the resident to clarify what further works were required to redecorate the bathroom. It stated that there was another large scale leak that was affecting the whole building which was being managed by insurers.
  4. The landlord attended the property during July and August 2020 but there continued to be issues with leaks and sewage backflow in the bathroom. The resident contacted the landlord on several occasions. On 29 August 2020 raw sewage again overflowed and the landlord attended the property. The landlord advised the resident that she would need to move out of the property in the next 2 to 3 weeks whilst the works were being undertaken – which could take 2 to 3 months. On 4 September 2020 the resident complained that she was now experiencing blockages to her toilet and the damage to her property had not been rectified. She asked that the matter be attended to urgently as she continued to experience issues with raw sewage.
  5. After further surveys it was decided at the end of September 2020 to decant the resident due to the extent of the damage and the resident was advised that someone would be in touch to arrange the decant. On 13 October 2020 the resident asked the landlord what the date was for her to be decanted. The resident attempted to contact the landlord on several occasions during October 2020, however no further information was provided on the decant. On 4 November 2020 the landlord advised that the relevant parties had been asked to contact her and that her complaint was escalated to stage two of its complaints procedure.
  6. On 20 November 2020 the resident asked for an update. On 27 November 2020 the landlord advised that a surveyor had been appointed to assess the works needed.
  7. The landlord visited again in December but did not provide a date for the decant. In February 2021 the resident contacted the landlord who advised that the works were scheduled for that month. On 8 February 2021, following a voice message from the resident, the landlord advised the resident that a programme of works was proposed for 23 February to 6 April 2021 and a temporary property for her was being looked for.
  8. The resident was decanted to temporary accommodation on 23 February 2021.
  9. On 10 March 2021 the resident notified the landlord of a new leak in the kitchen and asked the landlord about reimbursement for costs because of her decant. On 16 March 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s queries about the decant, advising that the decant would be covered by the insurer’s terms.
  10. On 5 April 2021 the landlord advised the resident that it would only be considering her complaint about the handling of repairs and its complaint handling. Any claims for damages would be considered by the insurers outside of the complaint appeal.
  11. On 23 April 2021 the landlord wrote a letter to the resident advising her of the outcome of its panel review of her complaint. The landlord acknowledged that there had been failures in investigating the matter in a timely manner, a failure to progress the decant when it was decided that it was necessary, and a failure to communicate with the resident. The landlord acknowledged that, given the extent of the repairs, the decant should have been better communicated and undertaken sooner. The landlord also acknowledged that the stage one complaint response did not “suitably address” the resident’s complaint points and that it failed to reassure the resident that repairs were being managed in an appropriate way. The landlord also acknowledged that the resident had escalated her complaint to stage two in November 2020, but it was not considered by the review panel until April 2021. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £550. This was made up of: Delays to repairs £200, Poor decant handling £150, Poor repair handling £100, Poor communication £50, Stage one complaint handling £25, Delayed appeal hearing £25. The landlord proposed to deduct this from the rent arrears outstanding on the resident’s account.
  12. The resident moved back into the property briefly in April 2021. When she returned, she identified a continuing leak and was decanted again. The resident states that there were a number of issues during this period, including the arrangement of removals and changing temporary accommodation. The resident’s property appears to have become habitable again in September 2021, however the resident raised concerns about returning to the property. The resident has requested a permanent transfer and is on the waiting list. She states that the landlord has offered unsuitable alternative accommodation. She states that the situation has had a significant impact on her mental health.

Scope of determination

  1. The Ombudsman notes that after the resident returned to the property in April 2021 there were further issues and the resident did not return to the property until October 2021. The resident’s position is that this was due to the repairs being faulty. The Ombudsman has been provided with correspondence between the resident and the landlord, after the landlord’s 23 April 2021 second complaint response, regarding a number of issues including the resident’s water bills, her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of further repairs that were needed after the first decant ended, her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her request for a permanent move and her refusal to return to the property. There also appears to be a dispute between the parties regarding the resident’s liability for rent payments.
  2. The Ombudsman has also now been provided with evidence of a first stage complaint response dated 10 June 2021 and a second stage complaint response dated 3 November 2021. The landlord clarified that in these responses it did not consider the issues raised by the resident in her first complaint, which were considered by the landlord in its first stage complaint response on 21 July 2020 and its second stage complaint response on 23 April 2021. The landlord only considered issues arising from the period commencing 28 April 2021 as it had already provided a response on the complaint regarding the previous period.
  3. The Ombudsman’s investigation has considered the issues which the landlord has considered and responded to in its first stage complaint response on 21 July 2020 and its second stage complaint response on 23 April 2021, as this is the complaint that was duly made to this Service. If the resident remains dissatisfied about the landlord’s position on the issues arising after this, which the landlord addressed in its first stage complaint response dated 10 June 2021 and second stage complaint response dated 3 November 2021, she would need to refer this to the Ombudsman separately.

Assessment and findings

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s responsibility to maintain and repair the property, reflecting its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. The landlord has acknowledged that there were unreasonable delays in the leak being initially investigated. It has also acknowledged that while there were further “operative attendances” in July and August once the works had been escalated there was a limited amount of information being provided to the resident and she continued to experience leaks and sewage backflow in the bathroom.
  3. The Ombudsman considers that there have been significant failings by the landlord in handling the repairs to the resident’s property. The evidence indicates that there were problems using the toilet and incidents of raw sewage in the bathroom of the property. The Ombudsman would expect such repairs to be attended to within a priority timeframe. In this case it took the landlord over a week to first attend the property. Whilst a short term fix was undertaken, problems remained. After the problem was first reported at the end of July 2020, it was not until 23 February 2021 until the resident was first decanted. This is clearly an excessive amount of time.
  4. It is not clear why it took the landlord so long. The Ombudsman notes that it is possible that the involvement of insurers – and the need for communication between the landlord and the insurers – may have been a factor. There may also have been some complications regarding other issues occurring in other areas of the building. However, neither of these factors would in themselves reduce the landlord’s responsibility for the delays and the Ombudsman is not persuaded that the evidence indicates that there were reasonable grounds for the landlord to have failed to arrange the repairs for a period of several months.
  5. The evidence indicates that the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions to ask for updates on the repairs. The resident received either no or limited replies on a number of occasions. The Ombudsman considers that there were numerous failings by the landlord to respond and communicate with the resident in a reasonable manner during this period.  The Ombudsman is persuaded that the resident suffered significant distress because she was required to continue to live in the property whilst the repairs were needed and because of the landlord’s failures to communicate about when the repairs would be undertaken.
  6. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord’s Decant Policy and Procedure sets out the approach which the landlord commits to taking when a resident needs to be decanted due to repairs being undertaken. One of the basic standards set out is that the landlord will “regularly communicate with the resident to ensure that they are clear about the process and the time it will take”. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord failed to do so in this case. It appears that it determined in September 2020 that the resident would need to be decanted. However, this had not been progressed in December 2020 at which time the resident was again told that she would be decanted, but not provided with details of when and how this would occur. The resident was ultimately not decanted until February 2021.
  7. The landlord’s Complaint Policy at the time set out that the target for reviewing a Stage Two complaint is thirty days – that is the panel meeting should be held within 30 days of the appeal. This clearly did not occur in this case. It was also a failing that the stage one complaint response failed to deal with the substance of the issues raised by the resident. The Ombudsman finds these to be complaints handling failings.
  8. As said, the landlord has accepted that there were failings in its handling of the repairs, the decant and its communication with the resident. The crux of the issue for the Ombudsman to decide is whether the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident.
  9. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £550. This was made up of: Delays to repairs £200, Poor decant handling £150, Poor repair handling £100, Poor communication £50, Stage one complaint handling £25, Delayed appeal hearing £25.
  10. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided. Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for distress and inconvenience, we are not able to quantify a definitive loss and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
  11. In considering whether the £550 offered by the landlord in this case is reasonable, the Ombudsman has referred to this service’s Remedies Guidance. This sets out that awards between £250 and £750 may be appropriate where there has been “considerable” failings by the landlord but no permanent impact on the resident. Awards for £700 or more are used for “maladministration/severe maladministration that has had a severe long term impact on the complainant”. Examples given include “long stay in temporary accommodation due to mishandling of repairs”.
  12. The Ombudsman has also taken into account the landlord’s Compensation Policy. This policy states that factors to take into account in deciding the overall amount of compensation to pay include “the duration of any avoidable distress or inconvenience” and “actions by the … landlord which … contributed to … distress or inconvenience”. The policy further states that where there has been “delays in repairs” the landlord should pay compensation of £10-25 per week (depending on the severity of the impact on the resident) … once the repair is out of target”. The policy states that compensation for “a failure of service ie. Failure to reply to letters, return calls … poor communication” compensation of £25 should be paid. Where there is a “loss of amenity” the policy states that where a bathroom is “partially usable” compensation of 25-50% of the total loss compensation – being 25% of rent). For awards for compensation for distress and inconvenience, the Compensation Policy reflects the Ombudsman’s Guidance.
  13. In this case the Ombudsman’s opinion is that the resident, who has two dependant children, suffered significant distress and inconvenience and the redress proposed by the landlord is inadequate. It is not clear to what extent the bathroom could not be used during the period – the leak and sewage appears to have not been constant – however it appears that certainly the use of the bathroom was compromised on several occasions over a very lengthy period of time. The communication failings were numerous over a period of months and were about both the repair and the decant arrangements.
  14. As the assessment of the nature of repairs has varied, it is difficult to ascertain what the appropriate target for repair should have been. However, it is reasonable to consider that a period of almost seven months before repairs were even started is considerably over what a reasonable appropriate target would be.
  15. Taking all these factors into account, the Ombudsman considers that £1,000 is a more appropriate amount of compensation for the landlord to pay. The Ombudsman’s view is that this reflects the significance, the number and the duration of the failings. This amount includes the redress already offered by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been maladministration by the landlord with respect to its handling of repairs to the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been service failure by the landlord with respect to its complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. There were failings by the landlord in attending to and organising the repairs over a period of several months. The landlord failed to respond to the resident on a number of occasions and failed to communicate reasonably about the repairs and the resident’s decant. Although the landlord recognised some failings in its service and offered some redress for these, its offer did not take into account the full extent of the failings in this case and the cumulative impact of these on the resident and her household.
  2. The landlord failed to address the substance of the customer’s complaint in its first complaint response and failed to consider the complaint at the second stage in a reasonable timeframe.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman requires that the landlord pays the resident compensation of £1,000 within four weeks of the date of this decision. This amount includes the redress already offered by the landlord.
  2. The landlord should confirm to this Service that payment has been made within four weeks of the date of this decision.